316 Ill. App. 3d 752 - People v. Hockenberry’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably 197 Ill. 2d 203 - People v. Savory (2001), 205 Ill. 2d 381 - People v. Johnson (2002)
41 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 147 Ill. 2d 326 - People v. Frieberg · 91 Ill. 2d 108 - Flores v. Dugan · 188 Ill. 2d 546 - County of Knox Ex Rel. Masterson v. Highlands, L.L.C. · 309 Ill. App. 3d 408 - People v. Savory · 254 Ill. App. 3d 997 - People v. Miller
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(a) A defendant may make a motion before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case for the performance of fingerprint or forensic DNA testing on evidence that was secured in relation to the trial which resulted in his or her conviction, but which was not subject to the testing which is now requested because the technology for the testing was not available at the time of trial. Reasonable notice of the motion shall be served upon the State. (b) The defendant must present a prima facie case that: (1) identity was the issue in the trial which resulted in his or her conviction; and (2) the evidence to be tested has been subject to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any material aspect. (c) The trial court shall allow the testing under reasonable conditions designed to protect the State's interests in the integrity of the evidence and the testing process upon a determination that: (1) the result of the testing has the scientific potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence materially relevant to the defendant's assertion of actual innocence; (2) the testing requested employs a scientific method generally accepted within the relevant scientific community." 725 ILCS 5/116-3 (West 2000).”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Pursley · People v. Moore“Such a standard is appropriate because the trial court's decision on such a motion is necessarily based upon its review of the pleadings and the trial transcripts and is not based upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. [Citation.] Accordingly, the trial court is not in a better position than the reviewing court to decide the merits of the defendant's motion.”
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.