75 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 357 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 365 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In discussing exceptions to the waiver rule as it relates to the failure to raise an issue in the trial court, this court stated in People v. Burson (1957), 11 Ill.2d 360, 370 , that the rule `will not operate to deprive an accused of his constitutional rights of due process.' The court also stated that it may, as a matter of grace, take notice of errors appearing upon the record which deprived the accused of substantial means of enjoying a fair and impartial trial. ( 11 Ill.2d 360, 370-71 .) In People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill.2d 280, 283 , this court noted that the plain error exception to the waiver rule will also be applied in criminal cases in which the evidence is closely balanced. "”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 70 Ill. App. 3d 430 - People v. Voda · People v. Henderson

2. “"If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the defendant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not guilty by reason of insanity of murder of Richard Clark, you should find him not guilty by reason of insanity of murder of Richard Clark, your deliberations on this charge should end, and you should return the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity on the charge of murder of Richard Clark. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the defendant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not guilty by reason of insanity of murder of Richard Clark, then you should continue your deliberations on this charge to determine whether the defendant is guilty but mentally ill of murder of Richard Clark. A special verdict of guilty but mentally ill shall be returned by you instead of a general verdict of guilty if you find each of the following propositions to be present in this case: First: That the defendant is guilty of murder of Richard Clark; and Second: That the defendant was not legally insane at the time he committed murder of Richard Clark: and Third: That the defendant was mentally ill at the time he committed murder of Richard Clark. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should return the special verdict finding the defendant guilty but mentally ill on the charge of murder of Richard Clark. If you find”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 91 Ill. App. 3d 26 - People v. Ogunsola · 81 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Jones

3. “"To sustain the charge of aggravated criminal sexual assault, the State must prove the following propositions: First: The defendant committed an act of sexual penetration upon [the victim]; and Second: That the act was committed by the use of force or threat of force, and [the victim] did not consent to the act of sexual penetration; Third: That the defendant displayed a dangerous weapon; or Fourth: That the defendant caused bodily harm to [the victim]. * * * The word 'consent’ means a freely given agreement to the act of sexual penetration in question.” (Emphasis added.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 259 Ill. App. 3d 381 - People v. Norfleet · 149 Ill. 2d 355 - People v. Leger