205 Ill. 2d 381 - People v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably 208 Ill. 2d 291 - People v. Flowers (2004), 232 Ill. 2d 113 - People v. Walker (2009)
3 federal appellate · 118 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · 104 Ill. 2d 504 - People v. Albanese · 183 Ill. 2d 366 - People v. Coleman · Bracy v. Gramley · 186 Ill. 2d 83 - People v. Evans
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`A trial court has inherent discretionary authority to order discovery in post-conviction proceedings. See People ex rel. Daley v. Fitzgerald , 123 Ill.2d 175 , 183 , 121 Ill.Dec. 937 , 526 N.E.2d 131 (1988); People v. Rose , 48 Ill.2d 300 , 302 , 268 N.E.2d 700 (1971). A court must exercise this authority with caution, however, because a defendant may attempt to divert attention away from constitutional issues which escaped earlier review by requesting discovery. . . . Accordingly, the trial court should allow discovery only if the defendant has shown `good cause,' considering the issues presented in the petition, the scope of the requested discovery, the length of time between the conviction and the post-conviction proceeding, the burden of discovery on the State and on any witnesses, and the availability of the evidence through other sources. Daley , 123 Ill.2d at 183 -84 , 121 Ill.Dec. 937 , 526 N.E.2d 131 ; see People v. Fair , 193 Ill.2d 256 , 264-65 , 250 Ill.Dec. 284 , 738 N.E.2d 500 (2000). We will reverse a trial court's denial of a post-conviction discovery request only for an abuse of discretion. Fair , 193 Ill.2d at 265 , 250 Ill.Dec. 284 , 738 N.E.2d 500 . A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a discovery request which ranges beyond the limited scope of a post-conviction proceeding and amounts to a "fishing expedition."'"”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte State · State v. Mack“"(a) A defendant may make a motion before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case for the performance of fingerprint, Integrated Ballistic Identification System, or forensic DNA testing, including comparison analysis of genetic marker groupings of the evidence collected by criminal justice agencies pursuant to the alleged offense, to those of the defendant, to those of other forensic evidence, and to those maintained under subsection (f) of Section 5-4-3 of the Unified Code of Corrections, on evidence that was secured in relation to the trial which resulted in his or her conviction, and: (1) was not subject to the testing which is now requested at the time of trial; or (2) although previously subjected to testing, can be subjected to additional testing utilizing a method that was not scientifically available at the time of trial that provides a reasonable likelihood of more probative results. Reasonable notice of the motion shall be served upon the State. (b) The defendant must present a prima facie case that: (1) identity was the issue in the trial which resulted in his or her conviction; and (2) the evidence to be tested has been subject to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any material aspect. (c) The trial court shall allow the testing under reasonable conditions designed to protect the State's interests in the integrity of the evidence and the testing proc”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he Vitullo kit, as a piece of real evidence admitted at trial, would have remained in the custody of the circuit court clerk after the defendant's conviction.”
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.