98 Ill. App. 3d 708 - People v. McVay’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2004 · most notably 113 Ill. App. 3d 818 - People v. Winfield (1983), Williams v. Washington (1995)
4 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Bruton v. United States · Balistrieri v. United States · 67 Ill. 2d 564 - People v. Manion · 46 Ill. 2d 177 - The People v. Hudson · 40 Ill. 2d 154 - The People v. Miller
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While the usual case involves an admission directly implicating a co-defendant, the confession or admission need not directly or expressly name a co-defendant, so long as the incriminating implications clearly point toward a co-defendant’s guilt. (People v. Clark (1959), 17 Ill. 2d 486, 491-92 ; People v. Serritello (1944), 385 Ill. 554, 558 , 53 N.E.2d 581 .) In assessing the incriminating implications for a co-defendant named in another defendant’s admission, the admission must be viewed in the context of the State’s other evidence. (People v. Clark (1959), 17 Ill. 2d 486, 491-92 ; People v. Hudson (1970), 46 Ill. 2d 177 , 263 N.E.2d 473 .) In Hudson, the test applied was whether the admission by. a co-defendant readily leads to an incriminating conclusion against the defendant. 46 Ill. 2d 177, 196 .” (Emphasis added.) (People v. McVay (1981), 98 Ill. App. 3d 708, 716 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... when a motion for a separate trial is predicated on the premise that a codefendant’s confession or admission implicates the moving defendant, a severance should be granted unless the prosecution declares that the admission or confession will not be offered in evidence at the time of trial, or if offered, that there will be eliminated therefrom any and all reference to the party applying for the severance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.