129 Ill. 2d 123 - People v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 254 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 262 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The defendant argues that because the prosecutor did not exercise peremptory challenges to excuse white jurors on the same basis that he exercised them against black jurors, it must be assumed that the prosecution's explanations were merely a pretext to hide a racial motivation for the strikes. What the defendant argues should not be lightly dismissed. We must keep in mind, however, the nature of the peremptory challenge and the inherent problems involved in a hearing of this character. If the prosecutor excused one person and not another its does not follow that this in itself shows that the prosecutor's explanations were pretextual. Though a part of the prosecutor's explanations may have been applicable to white jurors who were not challenged, the white jurors may have, in some other respect, exhibited a trait which the prosecutor reasonably believed would make him or her desirable as a juror.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 151 Ill. 2d 498 - People v. Ramey · 243 Ill. App. 3d 525 - People v. Banks

2. “"Betty Simmons. Her husband was unemployed. She indicated that her son had gone to court on an armed robbery. Wasn’t clear to me from her responses what the disposition of that armed robbery case had been, nor whether she was satisfied with the treatment that her son had received. Again, I did not feel that I had a great amount of knowledge regarding Betty Simmons. Her ties to the community seemed to be tenuous, and in comparison to other jurors I was considering at that time, I did exercise a peremptory challenge.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 164 Ill. 2d 322 - People v. Harris · 681 F. Supp. 2d 937 - United States Ex Rel. Harris v. Shaw

3. ““[Ejxplanations which focus upon a venireperson’s body language or demeanor must be closely scrutinized because they are subjective and can be easily used by a prosecutor as a pretext for excluding persons on the basis of race.” (Harris, 129 Ill. 2d at 176 .)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 222 Ill. App. 3d 571 - People v. Finley · 681 F. Supp. 2d 937 - United States Ex Rel. Harris v. Shaw