315 Ill. App. 3d 980 - People v. Becker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`In People v. Spears , 112 Ill.2d 396 , 98 Ill. Dec. 9 , 493 N.E.2d 1030 (1986), the supreme court expanded on Hoffer and held that where defendant's culpable conduct was essentially one act, the jury could not find that defendant possessed simultaneous knowing and reckless mental states. Spears , 112 Ill.2d at 407 , 98 Ill. Dec. 9 , 493 N.E.2d 1030 . In that case, the defendant shot his wife and her friend within rapid succession. Five verdict *Page 810 forms were provided: one for attempted murder of his wife, two for armed violence as to his wife and her friend, and two for reckless conduct as to his wife and her friend. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The supreme court stated that, in resolving the question of whether guilty verdicts are consistent, the charging instrument, the jury instructions and the evidence at trial provide the essential framework for analyzing the consistency of jury verdicts. Spears , 112 Ill.2d at 405 , 98 Ill. Dec. 9 , 493 N.E.2d 1030 . "`. . . . "`The trial court's failure to send the jury back for further deliberations to resolve the inconsistent verdicts mandates a reversal and a new trial on all the inconsistent verdicts. . . .'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carter v. State

2. “[t]he standard for application of the fifth amendment privilege has been whether the person claiming it is confronted by substantial and real, not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 327 Ill. App. 3d 153 - In Re DP

3. “Legally inconsistent verdicts cannot stand because they are unreliable. At a minimum, such verdicts suggest confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carter v. State