198 Ill. 2d 68 - People v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 92 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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Apprendi does not require that every fact related to sentencing be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. On the contrary, Apprendi requires that only those facts that increase the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. * * * Here, the maximum sentence facing defendant ( i.e., death) was established when the trial court found, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the murder both was committed in the course of another felony and involved the infliction of torture. The trial court's subsequent finding that the murder `was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty' did nothing to increase the penalty that defendant was facing. Rather, it simply guided the trial court in fashioning an appropriate sentence that was both specifically authorized by statute and below the prescribed statutory maximum" (Emphasis in original.) Ford, 198 Ill.2d at 74-75 , 260 Ill.Dec. 552 , 761 N.E.2d 735 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 327 Ill. App. 3d 1027 - People v. Reynolds · 325 Ill. App. 3d 643 - People v. Lee

2. “"In Apprendi the United States Supreme Court invalidated New Jersey's hate crime statute, which allowed the sentencing judge to increase the sentence for a particular offense beyond the statutory maximum if the judge found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant, in committing the offense, acted with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals on the basis of, inter alia, race. Apprendi 530 U.S. at 468-69 , 120 S.Ct. at 2351 , 147 L.Ed.2d at 442 . In doing so, the Court held that, under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. XIV), `[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.' Apprendi 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. at 2362-33 , 147 L.Ed.2d at 455 ." Ford, 198 Ill.2d at 73 , 260 Ill.Dec. 552 , 761 N.E.2d 735 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 209 Ill. 2d 543 - People v. Townsell · 327 Ill. App. 3d 1027 - People v. Reynolds

3. ““Defendant also suggests that, under Apprendi, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be charged in the indictment. However, the Court in Apprendi specifically declined to address the indictment question, noting that (1) Apprendi did not assert a constitutional claim based upon the indictment’s failure to charge the extended-term sentencing factors, and (2) the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, upon which Apprendi exclusively relied, has never been construed to make the fifth amendment right to ‘ “presentment of a Grand Jury” ’ applicable to the states. Apprendi, 350 U.S. at 477 n.3, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 447 n.3, 120 S. Ct. at 2355 n.3.” Ford, 198 Ill. 2d at 72 n.l.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 329 Ill. App. 3d 1053 - People v. Tomasello · 217 Ill. 2d 535 - People v. Mata