78 Ill. 2d 82 - People v. DeWitt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““to written notice of the alleged violation, to disclosure of the evidence against him, to be heard in person and to present testimonial and documentary evidence, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be judged by a neutral and detached hearing body, to receive a written statement by the fact finders stating the evidence relied on and the reason for revocation, and, in some instances, to receive assistance of counsel. ( 411 U.S. 778, 782, 786, 788 , 36 L. Ed. 2d 656, 662, 664-65 , 93 S. Ct. 1756, 1760-63 .) Illinois statutes have similar guarantees. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 1005 — 6—4.)” People v. DeWitt (1979), 78 Ill. 2d 82, 85 , 397 N.E.2d 1385 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 165 Ill. 2d 93 - People v. Gazelle · 129 Ill. App. 3d 331 - People v. Hoyt

2. “Defendant further contends that the language of Supreme Court Rule 411 (58 Ill.2d R. 411) grants a probationer the discovery provided in Supreme Court Rule 412 (65 Ill.2d R. 412). Rule 411 provides that the discovery rules "[s]hall be applied in all criminal cases wherein the accused is charged with an offense for which, upon conviction, he might be imprisoned in the penitentiary. They shall become applicable following indictment or information and shall not be operative prior to or in the course of any preliminary hearing." Although a determination that a probationer has violated the conditions of his probation may result in a sentence to the penitentiary, that sentence is imposed for the original offense of which he had been convicted rather than for the conduct constituting violation. If the acts which violated the probation also constitute a criminal offense, the State may, of course, prosecute the probationer for that offense ( People v. Howell (1977), 46 Ill. App.3d 300, 302 , 4 Ill.Dec. 837 , 360 N.E.2d 1212 ; People v. Kondo (1977), 51 Ill. App.3d 874, 876 , 9 Ill.Dec. 479 , 366 N.E.2d 990 ), and, if it does, he would then be entitled to the discovery provided by Supreme Court Rule 412 (65 Ill.2d R. 412). While our discovery rules do not specifically exclude probation- or parole-revocation hearings, it is quite clear that they were designed for use in connection with criminal trials. Those rules apply to the probationer's trial on the underlying offense, but a petitio”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cuciak v. State · 119 Ill. 2d 69 - People v. Foster

3. “"While our discovery rules do not specifically exclude probation- or parole-revocation hearings, it is quite clear that they were designed for use in connection with criminal trials. Those rules apply to the probationer's trial on the underlying offense, but a petition to revoke probation is not a criminal indictment or information and a judgment revoking probation is not a felony conviction." People v. Dewitt (1979), 78 Ill.2d 82, 86 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 119 Ill. 2d 69 - People v. Foster