12 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Florida v. Nixongreen2 sentences2025Id. ¶ 25 (citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659-61 (1984)). ¶ 91 “The United States Supreme Court has characterized the second Cronic exception, failing to subject the State’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, as narrow and infrequently applied.” People v. Boots, 2022 IL App (2d) 200640, ¶ 26 (citing Cherry, 2016 IL 118728 , ¶ 26, citing Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 190 (2004)). 2023We disagree. ¶ 20 The second Cronic exception to Strickland’s prejudice requirement is “narrow” and applies “infrequently.” People v. Cherry, 2016 IL 118728, ¶27 (quoting Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 190 (2004)). | 4 | 4 |
Keith Miller v. Walter E. Martingreen2 sentences2025Id. (citing Miller v. - 26 - 2025 IL App (2d) 230543 Martin, 481 F.3d 468, 473 (7th Cir. 2007)). 2022Id. (citing Miller v. Martin, 481 F.3d 468, 473 (7th Cir. 2007)). | 4 | 4 |
People v. Caballerogreen2 sentences2026In People v. Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d 248 (1989), this court explained that the second Cronic exception applies when ‘counsel’s effectiveness has fallen to such a low level as to amount not merely to incompetence, but to no representation at all.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 267 (citing Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 ). *** Elsewhere, the Seventh Circuit has explained that ‘Cronic only applies if counsel fails to contest any portion of the prosecution’s case; if counsel mounts a partial defense, Strickland is the more appropriate test.’ (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Holman, 31 2026In People v. Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d 248 (1989), this court explained that the second Cronic exception applies when ‘counsel’s effectiveness has fallen to such a low level as to amount not merely to incompetence, but to no representation at all.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 267 (citing Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 ). *** Elsewhere, the Seventh Circuit has explained that ‘Cronic only applies if counsel fails to contest any portion of the prosecution’s case; if counsel mounts a partial defense, Strickland is the more appropriate test.’ (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Holman, 31 | 3 | 7 |
People v. Cherrygreen2 sentences2026In People v. Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d 248 (1989), this court explained that the second Cronic exception applies when ‘counsel’s effectiveness has fallen to such a low level as to amount not merely to incompetence, but to no representation at all.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 267 (citing Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 ). *** Elsewhere, the Seventh Circuit has explained that ‘Cronic only applies if counsel fails to contest any portion of the prosecution’s case; if counsel mounts a partial defense, Strickland is the more appropriate test.’ (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Holman, 31 2025Id. ¶ 25 (citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659-61 (1984)). ¶ 91 “The United States Supreme Court has characterized the second Cronic exception, failing to subject the State’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, as narrow and infrequently applied.” People v. Boots, 2022 IL App (2d) 200640, ¶ 26 (citing Cherry, 2016 IL 118728 , ¶ 26, citing Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 190 (2004)). | 3 | 6 |
United States v. Cronicgreen2 sentences2026In People v. Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d 248 (1989), this court explained that the second Cronic exception applies when ‘counsel’s effectiveness has fallen to such a low level as to amount not merely to incompetence, but to no representation at all.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 267 (citing Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 ). *** Elsewhere, the Seventh Circuit has explained that ‘Cronic only applies if counsel fails to contest any portion of the prosecution’s case; if counsel mounts a partial defense, Strickland is the more appropriate test.’ (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Holman, 31 2025Id. ¶ 25 (citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659-61 (1984)). ¶ 91 “The United States Supreme Court has characterized the second Cronic exception, failing to subject the State’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, as narrow and infrequently applied.” People v. Boots, 2022 IL App (2d) 200640, ¶ 26 (citing Cherry, 2016 IL 118728 , ¶ 26, citing Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 190 (2004)). | 2 | 8 |
Bell v. Conegreen2 sentences2016Again, the second Cronic exception applies only when counsel “ ‘entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Bell, 535 U.S. at 697 (quoting Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 ). 2016Again, the second Cronic exception applies only when counsel “ ‘entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Bell, 535 U.S. at 697 (quoting Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 ). | 1 | 4 |
People v. Bootsgreen1 sentence2025Id. ¶ 25 (citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659-61 (1984)). ¶ 91 “The United States Supreme Court has characterized the second Cronic exception, failing to subject the State’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, as narrow and infrequently applied.” People v. Boots, 2022 IL App (2d) 200640, ¶ 26 (citing Cherry, 2016 IL 118728 , ¶ 26, citing Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 190 (2004)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Freeman Holman
green
2 sentences2026In People v. Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d 248 (1989), this court explained that the second Cronic exception applies when ‘counsel’s effectiveness has fallen to such a low level as to amount not merely to incompetence, but to no representation at all.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 267 (citing Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 ). *** Elsewhere, the Seventh Circuit has explained that ‘Cronic only applies if counsel fails to contest any portion of the prosecution’s case; if counsel mounts a partial defense, Strickland is the more appropriate test.’ (Emphasis in original.) United States v. Holman, 31 2024Put more simply, “ ‘Cronic only applies if counsel fails to contest any portion of the prosecution’s case; if counsel mounts a partial defense, Strickland is the more appropriate test.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Cherry, 2016 IL 118728 , ¶ 26 (quoting United States v. Holman, 314 F.3d 837 , 839 n.1 (7th Cir. 2002)). ¶ 36 As to Moor, defendant argues that his failure to file a motion for a new trial falls under the second Cronic exception. | 4 | 2016–2026 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2025Id. ¶ 25 (citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659-61 (1984)). ¶ 91 “The United States Supreme Court has characterized the second Cronic exception, failing to subject the State’s case to meaningful adversarial testing, as narrow and infrequently applied.” People v. Boots, 2022 IL App (2d) 200640, ¶ 26 (citing Cherry, 2016 IL 118728 , ¶ 26, citing Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 190 (2004)). 2022In Cronic, a companion case to Strickland, the Supreme Court “explained that prejudice may be presumed where (1) the defendant ‘is denied counsel at a critical stage,’ (2) counsel ‘entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing,’ or (3) counsel is called upon to represent a client in circumstances under which no lawyer could prove effective assistance.” Id. (quoting Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659-61 ). ¶ 48 Relevant to the instant appeal is the second Cronic exception—that is, the failure to subject the State’s case to meaningful adversarial testing. | 3 | 2022–2025 |
People v. Pitman
green
2 sentences2016The result was that “counsel’s actions deprived defendant of the right of having the issue of his guilt or innocence presented to the jury as an adversarial issue.” Id. ¶ 28 The second and only other time we applied the second Cronic exception was in People v. Morris, 209 Ill. 2d 137 (2004), overruled in part on other grounds in People v. Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d 502 (2004). 2016The result was that “counsel’s actions deprived defendant of the right of having the issue of his guilt or innocence presented to the jury as an adversarial issue.” Id. - 12 - ¶ 28 The second and only other time we applied the second Cronic exception was in People v. Morris, 209 Ill. 2d 137 (2004), overruled in part on other grounds in People v. Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d 502 (2004). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Morris
green
2 sentences2016The result was that “counsel’s actions deprived defendant of the right of having the issue of his guilt or innocence presented to the jury as an adversarial issue.” Id. - 12 - ¶ 28 The second and only other time we applied the second Cronic exception was in People v. Morris, 209 Ill. 2d 137 (2004), overruled in part on other grounds in People v. Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d 502 (2004). 2016Indeed, “[f]or *** all practical effect, as a result of defense counsel’s actions, defendant stood before the jury throughout the trial with no defensive strategy whatsoever.” Id. ¶ 29 These, then, are the only two instances in which this court has found per se ineffectiveness under the second Cronic exception. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Hattery
green
2 sentences2016The result was that “counsel’s actions deprived defendant of the right of having the issue of his guilt or innocence presented to the jury as an adversarial issue.” Id. ¶ 28 The second and only other time we applied the second Cronic exception was in People v. Morris, 209 Ill. 2d 137 (2004), overruled in part on other grounds in People v. Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d 502 (2004). 2016The result was that “counsel’s actions deprived defendant of the right of having the issue of his guilt or innocence presented to the jury as an adversarial issue.” Id. - 12 - ¶ 28 The second and only other time we applied the second Cronic exception was in People v. Morris, 209 Ill. 2d 137 (2004), overruled in part on other grounds in People v. Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d 502 (2004). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Lagrone
green
1 sentence2025Id. (citing Miller v. - 26 - 2025 IL App (2d) 230543 Martin, 481 F.3d 468, 473 (7th Cir. 2007)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.