362 Ill. App. 3d 250 - People v. James’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Even if the pretrial examination of defendant’s ¡pro se ineffective assistance] claim was insufficient, the facts of this case still do not warrant remand. In similar cases, this court has questioned whether a defendant has even adequately raised an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel allegation to warrant an investigation. See Pope, 284 Ill. App. 3d at 334, 672 N.E.2d at 68 (where the defendant did not file a posttrial motion or ask for new counsel). There, we held that when a trial court simply becomes aware that a defendant has criticized counsel’s performance, the court has no duty to investigate the defendant’s claim if it is patently without merit or unsupported by specific factual allegations or, in other words, if it would be summarily dismissed during the first stage of a postconviction proceeding.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 371 Ill. App. 3d 382 - People v. Ward

2. “[tJrial counsel's decision whether to provide his client with discovery materials constitutes a matter of trial strategy and judgment that ultimately lies within counsel's discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Krueger