149 Ill. 2d 71 - People v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 109 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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"in performing the acts which caused the death of the murdered individual or which resulted in physical injuries personally inflicted by the defendant on the murdered individual ***, the defendant acted with the intent to kill the murdered individual or with the knowledge that his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to the murdered individual or another[.]” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 9 — 1(b)(6)(b).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 156 Ill. 2d 258 - People v. Page · 158 Ill. 2d 275 - People v. Childress

2. ““The logic behind the waiver rule is exemplified by this case. Had defendant moved to suppress his statements or objected on fifth amendment grounds in a timely manner at the sentencing hearing, inquiry could have been made into whether he was in fact given Miranda warnings by Van Dyke. As it stands, there is no indication in the record as to whether or not Van Dyke gave defendant Miranda warnings prior to the interview. Likewise, had the issue been raised in defendant’s post-sentencing motion, the trial court could have conducted a hearing at which it could have been determined whether Miranda warnings were given. Thus, defendant’s failure to adequately preserve the issue has left this court with a record completely barren of any indication as to whether defendant was or was not given Miranda warnings prior to being interviewed by Van Dyke.” Hampton, 149 Ill. 2d at 99-100 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 237 Ill. 2d 539 - People v. Hillier

3. “[E]ven if the burglary-based aggravating factor were not sufficient to render defendant eligible for the death penalty, the evidence did establish that defendant had engaged in conduct which constituted either burglary or residential burglary. The trial judge was therefore still fully entitled to consider the evidence underlying that factor in making his sentencing determination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hampton v. Page