State v. Risinger’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2010
6 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 Glasser v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · 30 Ill. 2d 456 - The People v. Ryan · 39 Ill. 2d 66 - The PEOPLE v. Ware · State v. Turner
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A second danger in being represented by an attorney who also represented a prosecution witness comes to light in the facts unique to this case. Matlock not only pleaded guilty to the crimes committed at the beer distributor’s in exchange for probation if he would testify against defendant, but he also testified he had sold stolen property to defendant. It is reasonable to assume that Matlock’s continued freedom on probation or his apparent immunity from prosecution for stealing the CB radio he allegedly sold to defendant might depend on his performance at defendant’s instant trial or subsequent trials on additional charges. Consequently, on the one hand the public defender had a continuing duty not to degrade the value of Matlock’s cooperation with the state so as to assure the success of his probation or his freedom from prosecution for stealing, while on the other hand the attorney was required by his professional duty to the defendant to attack Matlock’s credibility in every proper or conceivable manner. People v. Augustus, 36 Ill.App.3d 75 , 343 N.E.2d 272, 273 (1976). Also see People v. Johnson, 46 Ill.2d 266 , 265 N.E.2d 869, 870 (1970); People v. Ware, 39 Ill.2d 66 , 233 N.E.2d 421, 422 (1968).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gordon v. State“The impossibility of representing a defendant with undivided allegiance becomes inherent in a situation where the attorney, because of confidential information obtained from a prosecution witness, has to reef his sails with a resulting lack of unfettered freedom to thoroughly and effectively cross-examine and impeach the witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gordon v. State
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.