157 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Pugh’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
96 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 217 Ill. 2d 324 - People v. Hall (2005), 205 Ill. 2d 308 - People v. Fuller (2002)
96 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 · Hill v. Lockhart · Brady v. United States · McMann v. Richardson · Enmund v. Florida
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order for *** the defendant to be eligible, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is more than 18 years of age; and, in fact, he was 21 at the time of the commission of this crime. That the defendant killed the victim; and, in fact, that is not in dispute. That the victim was killed during the course of another felony while, in fact, Bryan Douglas was killed during the commission of two enumerated felonies, that being armed robbery and forcible detention. And finally that the defendant intended 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. It’s the last premise that I have to decide. As I previously stated, it’s the burden of the State to prove each of the four elements beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no doubt with respect to the first three, and I find that because of the inconsistencies in the testimony of Haskins and Wolfe and their reports that I do have a reasonable doubt with respect to the defendant’s intent to kill Bryan Douglas. However, I make the following findings with respect to the defendant’s knowledge that his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm to the murdered individual and these are: Number 1, that he intended to commit an armed robbery. Number 2, that his weapon of choice was a sawed off 12 gauge shotgun. Three, that the weapon was loaded. Four, that the shotgun was a single ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““For the reasons stated, defendant’s convictions are affirmed, but his sentence of death is vacated. The cause is remanded to the circuit court of Cook County for a new hearing to determine defendant’s eligibility for the death penalty, as well as a new sentencing hearing. We direct that the hearings be held before a different trial judge.” Pugh, 157 Ill. 2d at 26 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'or where the ends of justice will be better served’ ”), with People v. Hillenbrand, 121 Ill. 2d 537, 545 , 521 N.E.2d 900, 903 (1988) (”
1 later decision 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.