194 Ill. 2d 40 - People v. Lofton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

103 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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[T]he trial court's innovation falls far outside the narrow and limited exception created by Craig . * * * The right to confront witnesses includes the right to hear and to view them as they testify. [Citation.] * * * [W]hen a defendant appears by counsel, the right to confront witnesses includes the ability to be of aid in counsel's cross-examination. [Citation.] Here the defendant's inability to observe the manner of the witness while testifying could have prejudiced him by limiting his ability to suggest lines of examination to his attorney that might have been indispensable to effective cross-examination [citation]." Lofton, 194 Ill.2d at 59-60 , 251 Ill.Dec. 496 , 740 N.E.2d 782 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. T.Z. (In Re T.Z.) · 359 Ill. Dec. 657 - People v. Salgado

2. ““has a due process right ‘ “to be present in his own person whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.” ’ [Citation.] Although the Court has emphasized that this privilege of presence is not guaranteed ‘when presence would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow’ [citation], due process clearly requires that a defendant be allowed to be present ‘to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence’ [citation], [Citation.] Therefore, a defendant is guaranteed the right to be present at any stage of the criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if his presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure.” People v. Lofton, 194 Ill. 2d 40, 66-67 , 740 N.E.2d 782 (2000).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 385 Ill. App. 3d 610 - People v. Burnett

3. “"The unauthorized alternative the trial court fastened upon of permitting the child witness to testify against the defendant barricaded by podiums limited the defendant's ability to aid in the cross-examination of the witness and thereby impinged upon the truth-seeking purpose of the confrontation clause [citation]. The novel arrangement devised by the trial court, authorized neither by statute nor by common law, failed to ensure the reliability of the evidence by subjecting it to rigorous adversarial testing and, thus, failed to preserve the essence of effective confrontation. * * * The admission of [the witness's] testimony, given under such circumstances, was incompatible with the confrontation clause." Lofton, 194 Ill.2d at 61 , 251 Ill.Dec. 496 , 740 N.E.2d 782 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 359 Ill. Dec. 657 - People v. Salgado