75 Ill. App. 3d 580 - People v. Pendleton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) [Wjhich is specifically designed to provoke a mistrial in order to secure a second - and perhaps more favorable - opportunity to convict the accused [citations]; or (2) which is motivated by bad faith or undertaken to harass or prejudice the accused [citation].” (People v. Pendleton (1979), 75 Ill. App. 3d 580, 593 .)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 124 Ill. App. 3d 770 - People v. Palmisano · 91 Ill. App. 3d 228 - People v. Estrada

2. “There was no legitimate need for the assistant state’s attorney to meet with the complainant and to intensively review and discuss the complainant’s previous testimony. We reject the State’s claim that such a conference was necessary to calm the complainant down. There were other less suspect ways available to relieve the complainant of her nervousness; ways which would not have posed such an inviting potential for prosecutorial manipulation. [Id. 75 Ill. App. 3d at 595 .] We find that the prosecutorial misconduct at the defendants’ first trial, which precipitated the mistrial declaration, constituted overreaching and acts as a bar to the defendants’ reprosecution. [ Id. at 597 ],”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Jones v. State

3. ““Rape is one of the most brutal acts one human being can inflict upon another. ‘It is highly reprehensible, both in a moral sense and in its almost total contempt for the personal integrity and autonomy of the female victim ***. Short of homicide, it is the “ultimate violation of self.” ’ Coker v. Georgia (1977), 433 U.S. 584, 597-98 , 53 L. Ed. 2d 982, 992-93 , 97 S. Ct. 2861, 2868 . Nevertheless, no matter how reprehensible a particular offense may be, it remains our obligation to turn back the State’s encroachment upon the constitutional rights of its citizens. The attainment of justice often-times compels a difficult accommodation among conflicting societal interests.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 143 Ill. App. 3d 577 - People v. Olesch