142 Ill. 2d 258 - People v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 355 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 377 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 186 Ill. 2d 83 - People v. Evans (1999), 205 Ill. 2d 52 - People v. Caffey (2001)
13 federal appellate · 355 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Batson v. Kentucky · Bruton v. United States · Payton v. New York · Bumper v. North Carolina
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 377 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"When a witness says he was involved in the commission of a crime with the defendant, the testimony of that witness is subject to suspicion and should be considered by you with caution. It should be carefully examined in light of the other evidence in the case.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"This court has held that testimony recounting the steps taken in a police investigation is admissible and does not violate the sixth amendment, even if a jury would conclude that the police began looking for a defendant as a result of what nontestifying witnesses told them, as long as the testimony does not gratuitously reveal the substance of their statements and so inform the jury that they told the police that the defendant was responsible for the crime. [Citation.] The testimony here merely related the conduct of the investigation; the fact that it appears that something Alonzo said caused the police to look for defendant does not mean that defendant had a right to cross-examine Alonzo there was simply nothing to cross-examine him about, given that the content of his statement to the police was never disclosed at trial." People v. Henderson, 142 Ill.2d 258, 304 , 154 Ill. Dec. 785 , 568 N.E.2d 1234, 1256 (1990).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[T]o prove the nature and extent of injuries and the force needed to inflict them; the position, condition, and location of the body; the manner and cause of death; to corroborate a defendant’s confession; and to aid in understanding the testimony of a pathologist or other witness. [Citations.]” Henderson, 142 Ill. 2d at 319-20 , 568 N.E.2d at 1263-64 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.