208 Ill. App. 3d 1073 - People v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently January 2026 · most notably 382 Ill. App. 3d 1151 - People v. Palmer (2008), 277 Ill. App. 3d 1053 - People v. Williams (1996)
51 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 Faretta v. California · Edwards v. Arizona · 101 Ill. 2d 147 - People v. Silagy · 92 Ill. 2d 85 - People v. Baker · 136 Ill. 2d 362 - People v. Gibson
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"To ensure that a defendant’s request for self-representation is an intelligent and knowing waiver of his right to counsel, *** it would be desirable for a trial court to inform defendant of the following matters: (1) presenting a defense is not a simple matter of telling one’s story, but requires adherence to various technical rules governing the conduct of a trial; (2) a lawyer has substantial experience and training in trial procedure and the prosecution will be represented by an experienced attorney; (3) a person unfamiliar with legal procedures (a) may allow the prosecutor an advantage by failing to make objections to inadmissible evidence, (b) may not make effective usage of such rights as the voir dire of jurors, and (c) may make tactical decisions that produce unintended consequences; (4) the defendant proceeding pro se will not be allowed to complain on appeal about the competency of his representation; (5) the effectiveness of his defense may well be diminished by his dual role as attorney and accused; (6) defendant will receive no special consideration from the court; (7) defendant will receive no extra time for preparation or greater library time (if in prison); (8) a lawyer can render important assistance (a) by determining the existence of possible defenses to the charges against defendant, (b) through consultations with the prosecutor regarding possible reduced charges or lesser penalties, and (c) in the event of a conviction, by presenting to the court matters”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"First, the request might come so late in the proceedings that to grant it would be disruptive of the orderly schedule of proceedings. We caution, however, that when a request to proceed pro se is made and there is no request for additional time to prepare, a motion to proceed pro se should generally be viewed as timely as long as it is made before trial. [Citation.] Second, a trial judge may terminate self-representation by a defendant who engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct * * *. While this authority ordinarily would be exercised only after a defendant has begun to represent himself, in exceptional situations, as noted by Professors LaFave and Israel, a defendant's behavior in the course of seeking to obtain self-representation may in itself be disruptive and thereby justify denying his motion to proceed pro se. [Citation.] * * * Third, defendant's request for self-representation may be denied when, despite the court's efforts to explain the consequences of waiver, the court finds the defendant is unable to reach the level of appreciation needed for a knowing and intelligent waiver. [Citation.] We emphasize, however, that this is an inquiry into the defendant's ability to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel; it is not an inquiry into defendant's ability to do an appropriate job defending himself at trial. " (Emphasis omitted and added.) People v. Ward, 208 Ill.App.3d 1073, 1084 , 153 Ill.Dec. 684 , 567 N.E.2d 642, 649 (1991).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Although a court may consider a defendant’s decision to represent himself unwise, if his decision is freely, knowingly, and intelligently made, it must be accepted out of' "that respect for the individual which is the lifeblood of the law.” ’ [Citation.] *** [A defendant] should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that ' "he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.” ’ [Citation.] *** The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances of that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.””
1 later decision 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.