People v. Meeks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

220 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 226 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is the duty of the parties *** to bring to the attention of the sentencing authority any alleged deficiency or inaccuracy in the presentence report. The requirement that the trial judge consider the presentence report was complied with in the present case; any objections to the sufficiency of the report must first be presented to the trial court.” (Meeks, 81 Ill. 2d at 533 , 411 N.E.2d at 14 .)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 255 Ill. App. 3d 516 - People v. James · 83 Ill. 2d 402 - People v. Kuesis

2. ““In addition to the historical basis for different evidentiary rules governing trial and sentencing procedures there are sound practical reasons for the distinction. In a trial before verdict the issue is whether a defendant is guilty of having engaged in certain criminal conduct of which he has been specifically accused. Rules of evidence have been fashioned for criminal trials which narrowly confine the trial contest to evidence that is strictly relevant to the particular offense charged. These rules rest in part on a necessity to prevent a time consuming and confusing trial of collateral issues. They were also designed to prevent tribunals concerned solely with the issue of guilt of a particular offense from being influenced to convict for that offense by evidence that the defendant had habitually engaged in other misconduct. A sentencing judge, however, is not confined to the narrow issue of guilt. His task within fixed statutory or constitutional limits is to determine the type and extent of punishment after the issue of guilt has been determined. Highly relevant — if not essential — to his selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics. And modern concepts individualizing punishment have made it all the more necessary that a sentencing judge not be denied an opportunity to obtain pertinent information by a requirement of rigid adherence to restrictive rules of evidence proper”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 88 Ill. 2d 482 - People v. La Pointe

3. ““(a) In felony cases, the presentence report shall set forth: (1) the defendant’s history of delinquency or criminality, physical and mental history and condition, family situation and background, economic status, education, occupation and personal habits; (2) information about special resources within the community which might be available to assist the defendant’s rehabilitation, including treatment centers, residential facilities, vocational training services, correctional manpower programs, alcohol and drug abuse programming, psychiatric and marriage counseling, and other programs and facilities which could aid the defendant’s successful reintegration into society; (3) the effect the offense committed has had upon the victim or victims thereof, and any compensatory benefit that various sentencing alternatives would confer on such victim or victims; (4) information concerning the defendant’s status since arrest, including his record if released on his own recognizance, or the defendant’s achievement record if released on a conditional pre-trial supervision program; (5) when appropriate, a plan, based upon the personal, economic and social adjustment needs of the defendant, utilizing public and private community resources as an alternative to institutional sentencing; and (6) any other matters that the investigatory officer' deems relevant or the court directs to be included.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Andrus