173 Ill. App. 3d 798 - People v. Colley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Under the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , and adopted by our supreme court in People v. Barnard (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 218 , 470 N.E.2d 1005 , and People v. Albanese (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 504 , 473 N.E.2d 1246 , a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must show (1) that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s errors the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. ( 466 U.S. at 687 , 80 L. Ed. 2d at 693 , 104 S. Ct. at 2064 .) In examining counsel’s performance, the inquiry is whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable in the light of all the circumstances. ( 466 U.S. at 690 , 80 L. Ed. 2d at 695 , 104 S. Ct. at 2066 .) In this regard, a reviewing court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance and avoid interfering with the constitutionally protected independence of counsel or restricting the wide latitude counsel have in making tactical decisions. ( 466 U.S. at 689 , 80 L. Ed. 2d at 694 , 104 S. Ct. at 2065 ; People v. Barnard (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 218, 233 , 470 N.E.2d 1005, 1010 .) In other words, the adequacy of counsel’s performance is to be determined on the basis of the totality of his conduct at trial rather than on isolated events or acts (People v. Rang”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 193 Ill. App. 3d 838 - People v. Harp · 256 Ill. App. 3d 403 - People v. Denton

2. “[T]he State did not raise the issue of the timeliness of defendant’s objection to the State’s use of peremptory challenges when defendant initially filed its pretrial motion for a mistrial, but instead challenged the motion solely on its factual merits.... We therefore conclude that the State has waived its argument that defendant’s objection to the State’s exercise of peremptory challenges was untimely.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. St. Cloud v. Leapley