238 Ill. 2d 125 - People v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 111 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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 360 Ill. Dec. 451 - People v. Lee · 357 Ill. Dec. 477 - People v. Burney

2. ““In Melendez-Diaz, the disputed evidence was a ‘hare-bones statement’ that the substance was cocaine, and the defendant ‘did not know what tests the analysts performed, whether those tests were routine, and whether interpreting their results required the exercise of judgment or the use of skills that the analysts may not have possessed.’ Melendez-Diaz, 557 U.S. at 320 , 174 L. Ed. 2d at 327 , 129 S. Ct. at 2537 . Here, [the expert] testified about her own expertise, judgment, and skill at interpretation of the specific alleles at the 13 loci, and confirmed her general knowledge of the protocols and procedures of Cellmark. [The expert] also conducted her own statistical analysis of the DNA match. She did not simply read to the judge, sitting as a fact finder, from Cellmark’s report. This is in contrast to Cellmark’s report, which did not include any comparative analysis of the electropherograms or DNA profiles and was not introduced into evidence. Cellmark’s electropherogram, rather, was part of the process used by [the expert] in rendering her opinion concluding that the profiles matched. Thus, [the expert’s] opinion is categorically different from the certificate in Melendez-Diaz.” Williams, 238 Ill. 2d at 149-50 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 406 Ill. App. 3d 114 - People v. Johnson

3. “(a) In General. The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. (c) Right to Challenge Expert. This Rule does not limit the right of an opposing party to cross-examine an expert witness or to test the basis of the expert’s opinion or inference.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Derr v. State