147 Ill. 2d 173 - People v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 236 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 252 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A prosecutor ordinarily relies on police and other investigative agencies for investigation of alleged criminal acts, but the prosecutor has an affirmative responsibility to investigate suspected illegal activity when it is not adequately dealt with by other agencies.” (Emphasis added.) ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 3—3.1(a), at 47 (3d ed. 1993).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. People v. Ringland · 283 Ill. App. 3d 753 - People v. Nohren

2. “[P]rior consistent statements are admissible to rebut a charge or inference that the witness is motivated to testify falsely or that his testimony is of recent fabrication, and such evidence is admissible to show that he told the same story before the motive came into existence or before the time of the alleged fabrication.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 251 Ill. App. 3d 709 - People v. Antczak · People v. White

3. ““Whether the necessary probability exists is governed not by technical legal rules, but rather by commonsense considerations that are factual and practical. *** *** Under the totality of the circumstances analysis, a deficiency in one prong of the traditional test of an informant’s tip (credibility or reliability) may be compensated for in determining the overall reliability of the tip by a showing as to the other (the basis of knowledge). [Citation.] Substantial corroboration would not only establish an informant’s veracity, but would also support an inference that an informant obtained his story reliably. [Citation.] Whether such corroboration consists of innocent or incriminating activity is not the question. Instead, the proper focus is ‘ “whether the actions of the suspects, whatever their nature, give rise to an inference that the informant is credible and that he obtained his information in a reliable manner.” ’ ” Williams, 147 Ill. 2d at 209-10 , 588 N.E.2d at 995 , quoting Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d at 251 , 469 N.E.2d at 160 , quoting Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213, 269 , 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 568 , 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2348 (White, J., concurring).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 250 Ill. App. 3d 838 - People v. Wilson