182 Ill. 2d 114 - People v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

61 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “aimed at the sort of police misconduct that would warrant suppression of the defendant's statements.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Harper · 558 F. Supp. 2d 826 - United States Ex Rel. Harris v. McCann

2. “The defendant [argues] that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the testimony about the ownership of the Mercedes. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984), provides a two-part test for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. A defendant alleging ineffective assistance must generally demonstrate both that counsel’s representation was deficient and that he was prejudiced as a result. To establish prejudice, a defendant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 698 . In reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance, a court “need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. at 2069 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 699 . In the present case, even if we assume that trial counsel erred in failing to object to the evidence challenged here, we conclude that the defendant is unable to establish the prejudice portion of the Strickland standard. As we noted in our preceding discussion of plain error, evidence of the defendant’s guilt for the charged offenses was overwhelming, consisting of Theresa Barnes’ and Theodore Traylor’s eyewitness testimony and of the defendant’s confession to the. crim”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 558 F. Supp. 2d 826 - United States Ex Rel. Harris v. McCann

3. “The defendant first argues that he was not proved guilty of the offense of attempted armed robbery. The indictment in this case alleged that the defendant took a substantial step toward the commission of armed robbery by ordering the victim from the car and shooting him. The defendant correctly observes that the prosecution failed to present any evidence that the defendant ordered the victim from the car, and the defendant therefore argues that he was not proved guilty of the offense. The defendant notes that, although Moore told the victim to exit the car, the defendant was not tried on an accountability theory. The defendant does not contend that the indictment is defective, or that there was a fatal variance between the language of the indictment and the evidence offered at trial. Indeed, it appears that the allegation in the indictment that the defendant ordered the victim from the car may be regarded as mere surplusage. See People v. Coleman, 49 Ill.2d 565, 571 , 276 N.E.2d 721 (1971). In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, a reviewing court must consider the evidence most favorably to the prosecution. See People v. Young, 128 Ill.2d 1, 48-50 , 131 Ill.Dec. 86 , 538 N.E.2d 461 (1989); People v. Collins, 106 Ill.2d 237, 261 , 87 Ill.Dec. 910 , 478 N.E.2d 267 (1985), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979). We believe that the evidence in the present case was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 558 F. Supp. 2d 826 - United States Ex Rel. Harris v. McCann