Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 Ill. App. 3d 621 - People v. Pepper

2 Ill. App. 3d 621 - People v. Pepper’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
March 1982
most recently cited

20 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 40 Ill. 2d 522 - The People v. Williams · People v. Munday · 49 Ill. 2d 179 - The People v. Collins · People v. Gougas · 74 Ill. App. 2d 458 - People v. Smith

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

  1. ““ ‘[A] jury in its deliberations is not limited to a consideration of that which is, strictly speaking, testimony. To the contrary, it may properly consider any facts developed in the trial from which a reasonable inference may be drawn for or against either party. For instance, if it is developed in a trial that a witness exists, presumably under the control of a defendant, who can throw light upon a vital matter, and he is not produced, certainly a jury may fairly consider that fact, and, likewise, counsel would have a legitimate right to comment thereon. * * * [I]t is our conclusion that though failure to call a witness or produce evidence may not be relied on as substantial proof of the charges, nonetheless, if other evidence tends to prove the guilt of a defendant and. he fails to bring in evidence within his control in explanation or refutation, his omission to do so is a circumstance entitled to some weight in the minds of the jury, and, as such, is a legitimate subject of comment by the prosecution.’ ” (Blakes, at 359-60, quoting Williams, at 528-29.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.