185 Ill. 2d 81 - People v. Kliner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 436 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 455 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]mproper remarks warrant reversal only where they result in substantial prejudice to the defendant, considering the content and context of the language, its relationship to the evidence, and its effect on the defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Stevens · People v. Hasprey

2. “The making of an objection to questions or comments by a judge poses a practical problem for the trial lawyer. It can prove embarrassing to the lawyer, but, more importantly, assuming that most juries view most judges with some degree of respect, and accord to them a knowledge of law somewhat superior to that of the attorneys practicing before the judge, the lawyer who objects to a comment or question by the judge may find himself viewed with considerable suspicion and skepticism by the very group whom he is trying to convert to his client's view of the facts, thereby perhaps irreparably damaging his client's interests. If he fails to object, he may, on appeal, be faced, as defendant here is, with the claim that his failure to act has precluded consideration of the error, and it is not always a sufficient answer to this situation to say that the objection can be made and ruling secured outside the hearing of the jury. It is particularly incumbent upon the trial judge to exercise a higher degree of care in his comments regarding, or interrogations of, witnesses before a jury in order to avoid influencing the jurors to any extent, and we therefore hold that a less rigid application of the rule requiring timely and proper objection and preservation of rulings thereon should prevail where the basis for the objection is the conduct of the trial judge than is otherwise required.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 235 Ill. 2d 478 - People v. McLaurin · 382 Ill. App. 3d 644 - People v. McLaurin

3. “[a] defendant's rights under the confrontation clause are not absolute. Rather, `the Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Johnson · 194 Ill. 2d 502 - People v. Kirchner