49 Ill. App. 3d 46 - People v. Riddle’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2008
12 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 54 Ill. 2d 552 - People Ex Rel. Ward v. Moran · 9 Ill. App. 3d 209 - People Ex Rel. Paul v. Harvey · 14 Ill. App. 3d 20 - People v. Hill · 30 Ill. App. 3d 788 - People v. Herron · 5 Ill. App. 3d 924 - People v. Townsend
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘COURT: Mr. Gunter, is this your verdict? A: Yes, sir. Q: Are you satisfied with it? A: In a way I was and in a way I wasn’t. Q: Do you want this to be your verdict? A: I guess it will have to be. Q: And do you want me to accept it? A: Yes, sir. %¡ Jjí íjí Q: Mrs. Christian, is this your verdict? A: Yes, sir. Q: Are you satisfied with it? A: In some ways and in some ways not. Q: Do you want me to accept it? A: Yes, sir.’ ” Riddle, 49 Ill. App. 3d at 48 , 363 N.E.2d at 883 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It cannot reasonably be maintained that jurors Christian and Gunter were not given ample opportunity to express grave doubts or to disavow the verdict. The court’s line of questioning seeking to determine each juror’s satisfaction with the verdict was aimed to elicit the juror’s true feelings. It is true that the responses in question were unorthodox, but they were not expressions of dissent as defendant would have us believe. There is no sign that the jurors were coerced by their fellow jurors in this case. Nor is there any indication that the questions put forth by the court were in any way oppressive or designed to coerce assent to a verdict of guilty. The court took care to see that expressions of dissent by the jurors were not hindered.” 49 Ill. App. 3d 46, 48-49 , 363 N.E.2d 881 .”
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.