164 Ill. 2d 436 - People v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 65 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a matter of trial strategy which will be accorded great deference.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2018 IL App (3d) 150674 - People v. Dunbar · 234 F. Supp. 2d 851 - Wilson v. Schomig

2. “The Illinois Supreme Court also found: Other evidence adduced at trial included [Detective Dan] Katz’ testifying that the location of the bodies inside the store was not released to the press, but defendant knew of the location of one of the bodies when he spoke to police at the crime scene. Two of defendant’s cell mates testified that defendant told them that he robbed a liquor store and shot someone. John Daniels testified that in August of 1990, defendant told him that he and some other men went into a liquor store in Bloomington to commit a robbery and that people were shot and another lady was pistol-whipped. Kob-ert Faraci testified that in January 1991, defendant told him that he robbed a liquor store and shot someone in Bloom-ington. Defendant’s son, Jarmaine Wilson, also testified that on the night of the murder, defendant used a gun to threaten his mother to drive a car. Jar-maine’s mother acquiesced and got into the car; defendant sat on the front passenger side and Jarmaine rode hunched down in the back. Alvin Alexander rode in a separate car which accompanied the car in which Jarmaine was riding. When the car stopped, defendant got out while Jarmaine remained hunched down in the backseat. Several minutes later defendant got back into the car and ordered Jarmaine’s mother to hurry. The State also offered the testimony of three other witnesses who had gone to S & S on the night of the murders to buy liquor. Two of these witnesses testified that they saw two black m”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 234 F. Supp. 2d 851 - Wilson v. Schomig

3. “Defendant also contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel to the extent trial counsel failed to argue that defendant’s statements to the police were involuntary because of coercive circumstances. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must prove that defense counsel’s actions were so deficient that they were unreasonable and that the actions prejudiced the result of the trial. (Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 .) Defense counsel’s actions here were not so deficient as to have resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel. The motions to suppress defendant’s statements asserted, among other claims, that “the statement were not made by the defendant voluntarily.” Defense counsel sufficiently raised this claim in the trial court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 234 F. Supp. 2d 851 - Wilson v. Schomig