238 Ill. 2d 54 - People v. Phipps’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

117 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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[T]he rule, therefore, centers on whether the defendant had adequate notice of the subsequent charges to allow preparation of a defense. The focus is on whether the original charging instrument gave the defendant sufficient notice of the subsequent charges to prepare adequately for trial on those charges. If the original charging instrument gives a defendant adequate notice of the subsequent charges, the ability to prepare for trial on those charges is not hindered in any way. Thus, when the State files the subsequent charge, the defendant will not face 'a Hobson's choice between a trial without adequate preparation and further pretrial detention to prepare for trial.' [ People v. ] Williams , 204 Ill. 2d [191, 207, 273 Ill.Dec. 250 , 788 N.E.2d 1126 (2003) ]. Rather, the defendant may proceed to trial on the subsequent charges with adequate preparation instead of being forced to agree to further delay. In those circumstances, the rationale for declining to attribute to the defendant delays in connection with the original charges does not apply." Phipps , 238 Ill. 2d at 67 -68 , 342 Ill.Dec. 893 , 933 N.E.2d 1186 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. People v. Staake · People v. Peters

2. “'Where new and additional charges arise from the same facts as did the original charges and the State had knowledge of these facts at the commencement of the prosecution, the time within which trial is to begin on the new and additional charges is subject to the same statutory limitation that is applied to the original charges. Continuances obtained in connection with the trial of the original charges cannot be attributed to defendants with respect to the new and additional charges because these new and additional charges were not before the court when those continuances were obtained.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. People v. Staake · People v. Peters

3. “Every person in custody in this State for an alleged offense shall be tried by the court having jurisdiction within 120 days from the date he was taken into custody unless delay is occasioned by the defendant * * *. Delay shall be considered agreed to by the defendant unless he or she objects to the delay by making a written demand for trial or an oral demand for trial on the record.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. People v. Staake