184 Ill. App. 3d 676 - People v. Gregory’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The integrity of the jury’s verdict must be protected from coercion, duress or influence.’ (People v. Patten (1982), 105 Ill. App. 3d 892, 894 .) Thus, a court’s judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded when, taken in context and considering all the circumstances of the case, its supplemental instruction to a jury has the effect of coercing jurors into surrendering views conscientiously held. (Jenkins v. United States (1965), 380 U.S. 445 , 13 L. Ed. 2d 957 , 85 S. Ct. 1059 .) ‘A verdict hastened by the action of the judge, however worthy the motive, cannot be the result of that deliberation which the law guarantees.’ (People v. Golub (1929), 333 Ill. 554, 561 .) The possibility of a hung jury is an inevitable by-product of a unanimous-verdict requirement, and the jury cannot be compelled to reach a verdict in all instances. Pankey, 58 Ill. App. 3d at 926.” 184 Ill. App. 3d at 680-81 , 540 N.E.2d at 857 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Peel · 303 Ill. App. 3d 966 - People v. Ross

2. “[T]he test is whether under the circumstances the language [the trial court] used actually coerced or interfered with the deliberations of the jurors to the prejudice of the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Peel