78 Ill. 2d 465 - People v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 56 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If a plea discussion does not result in a plea of guilty, or if a plea of guilty is not accepted or is withdrawn, or if judgment on a plea of guilty is reversed on direct or collateral review, neither the plea discussion nor any resulting agreement, plea, or judgment shall be admissible against the defendant in any criminal proceeding.” 87 Ill. 2d R. 402(f).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 95 Ill. 2d 1 - People v. Davis · 114 Ill. App. 3d 894 - People v. Cowherd

2. ““[t]he disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused, sometimes loosely called 'plea bargaining,’ is an essential component of the administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged. If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-scale trial, the States and the Federal Goviemment would need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities. Disposition of charges after plea discussions is not only an essential part of the process but a highly desirable part for many reasons. It leads to prompt and largely final disposition of most criminal cases; it avoids much of the corrosive impact of enforced idleness during pretrial confinement for those who are denied release pending trial; it protects the public from those accused persons who are prone to continue criminal conduct even while on pretrial release; and, by shortening the time between charge and disposition, it enhances whatever may be the rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when they are ultimately imprisoned. See Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 751-752 (1970).” (Santobello, 404 U.S. 257, 260-61 , 30 L. Ed. 2d 427, 432 , 92 S. Ct. 495, 498 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 88 Ill. App. 3d 150 - People v. Benniefield

3. “‘The relevant factor is a defendant’s perception of the government official’s negotiating authority, not the official’s actual authority. The twin goals of encouraging unrestrained plea negotiations and assuring fairness to defendants dictate that any statements made by a defendant as part of an effort to reach a plea agreement must be excluded; it makes no difference that the defendant’s efforts are misguided because the official cannot or will not accept the offer.’ ” ( 78 Ill. 2d 465, 473 , 401 N.E.2d 517, 521 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 85 Ill. App. 3d 347 - People v. Hardiman