148 Ill. 2d 466 - People v. Ganus’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 172 Ill. 2d 484 - People v. Gilliam (1996), 159 Ill. 2d 97 - People v. Johnson (1994)
48 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 · 104 Ill. 2d 504 - People v. Albanese · 104 Ill. 2d 463 - People v. Stewart · 127 Ill. 2d 499 - People v. Phillips · 109 Ill. 2d 449 - People v. Hattery
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““What the instant case presents is a situation where the defendant literally had no defense. Evidence of his guilt was overwhelming. His counsel conceived a compulsion defense which, though not a legal defense, could or might have persuaded a jury not to convict. Jury nullification is always a possibility. It is not inconceivable that a compulsion defense might have evoked empathy, compassion or understanding and sympathy in the minds of the jurors. It is a truism that if a man is drowning, he will grasp at a straw that comes floating by. A weak or insufficient defense does not indicate ineffectiveness of counsel in a case where a defendant has no defense. In this case it would appear that defense counsel used his imagination and resourcefulness to come up with something where he had nothing to go on.” Ganus, 148 Ill. 2d at 473-74 .”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[i]n terms of defense strategy, the gang-activity evidence was legitimate, even though defendant was not entitled to a compulsion defense. *** Regardless of defense counsel’s intentions regarding compulsion, this evidence was relevant as mitigation, and its use as such was defense counsel’s principle reason for eliciting it. Counsel’s chosen concentration was the prevention of defendant’s death — a legitimate strategy given the unique circumstances of this case. [Therefore, these actions] cannot be characterized as unreasonable under the first prong of the Strickland standard.” Ganus, 148 Ill. 2d at 472 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Gant““replete with evidence corroborating defendant’s confession. * * * *** [Defendant’s conviction was the result of a highly corroborated confession, rather than inflammatory gang evidence. Given the strong nature of the evidence, it cannot be said that the jury would likely have acquitted defendant had defense counsel not established [his gang affiliation].” (Ganus, 148 Ill. 2d at 473 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Gant
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.