233 Ill. 2d 62 - People v. Patrick’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
199 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 201 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably 235 Ill. 2d 507 - People v. Delvillar (2009), 241 Ill. 2d 44 - People v. Baez (2011)
199 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 Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Hasting · Rock v. Arkansas · Luce v. United States · 215 Ill. 2d 167 - People v. Herron
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 201 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An abuse of discretion will be found only where the trial court's ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““A criminal defendant’s right to testify on his own behalf, or not to testify at all, is rooted in the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution. Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 51-53 , 97 L. Ed. 2d 37, 46-47 , 107 S. Ct. 2704, 2708-09 (1987). A defendant’s decision whether to testify is an important tactical determination. Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 612 , 32 L. Ed. 2d 358, 364 , 92 S. Ct. 1891, 1895 (1972). A defendant who chooses to testify faces serious risks of impeachment and may open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence. Brooks, 406 U.S. at 609 , 32 L. Ed. 2d at 362 , 92 S. Ct. at 1893 . The decision to testify ultimately belongs to the defendant but is generally made after consultation with counsel. People v. Medina, 221 Ill. 2d 394, 403 (2006). Making the important decision to testify without an opportunity to evaluate the actual strength of the State’s evidence restricts the defense in planning its case. Brooks, 406 U.S. at 612 , 32 L. Ed. 2d at 364 , 92 S. Ct. at 1895 . Obviously, defendants benefit from rulings on the admissibility of their prior convictions made before they decide to testify. First, early rulings provide defendants with the information necessary to make the critical decision whether to testify on their own behalf and to gauge the strength of their testimony. See People v. Averett, 381 Ill. App. 3d 1001 (2008). Second, early rulings permit defendants and defense counsel to make reasoned tactical decisio”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Patrick was unjustifiably required to make a tactical decision without the ability to evaluate the impact it would have on his defense. Patrick's counsel was unable to inform the jury whether Patrick would testify and was anticipatorily unable to disclose Patrick's prior convictions to lessen the prejudicial effect the convictions would have on his credibility." Patrick, 233 Ill.2d at 75 , 330 Ill. Dec. 149 , 908 N.E.2d 1 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.