How cited: People v. Williams · Go Syfert

People v. Williams (1996)

green · 71 citation events across 1 courts. Showing the 19 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 19
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200220142026
Sort: By significance · Most recent
green People v. Ellison (2013)
Quote Authority · Ill. App. Ct. · signal: see also · 3 citations in this opinion
Indeed, the Supreme Court has cautioned that standby counsel must be careful to ensure that defendant preserves “actual control over the case he chooses to present to the jury”: “If standby counsel’s participation over the defendant’s objection effectively allows counsel to make or substantially interfere with any significant tactical decisions, or to control the questioning of witnesses, or to speak instead of the defendant on any matter of importance, the Faretta right [to…
“[B]ecause a defendant’s right to represent himself has constitutional roots [citation], the conduct of standby counsel might inadvertently infringe upon that right.”
green People v. Johnson (2025)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
Id. ¶ 49 (first step in a plain error analysis is to determine whether a clear or obvious error occurred). ¶ 45 It is axiomatic that “a defendant who chooses to represent himself must be prepared to do so.” People v. Williams, 277 Ill.
green People v. Hood (2022)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
App. 3d 1053, 1058 , 661 N.E.2d 1186, 1189-90 (1996).
green People v. Curry (2022)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
One reason is that “[t]here is no ‘bright line’ test regarding the role of standby counsel.” Hui, 2022 IL App (2d) 190846, ¶ 63 (quoting People v. Williams, 277 Ill.
green People v. Hui (2022)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
People v. Williams, 277 Ill.
green People v. Seal (2020)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
App. 3d 1053, 1056-57 , 661 N.E.2d 1186, 1189 (1996).
green People v. Seal (2015)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
App. 3d 1053, 1056-57 , 661 N.E.2d 1186, 1189 (1996), the court admonished defendant as follows: “I am going to read you the pro se issues *** regarding representing yourself and they are as follows: Presenting the defense is not a simple matter of telling one’s story but requires adherence to various technical rules governing the conduct of a trial.
green People v. Seal (2015)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
App. 3d 1053, 1056-57 , 661 N.E.2d 1186, 1189 (1996), the court admonished defendant as follows: "I am going to read you the pro se issues *** regarding representing yourself and they are as follows: Presenting the defense is not a simple matter of telling one's story but requires adherence to various technical rules governing the conduct of a trial.
green People v. Burns (2012)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
App. 3d 1053, 1058 , 661 N.E.2d 1186, 1190 (1996)).
green People v. Phillips (2009)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
App. 3d 458, 461 (2007), citing People v. Williams, 277 Ill.
green People v. Foster (2009)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
App. 3d 1053, 1058 , 661 N.E.2d 1186, 1190 (1996).
green People v. Palmer (2008)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
App. 3d 1053, 1058 , 661 N.E.2d 1186, 1190 (1996)), and we adhere to that opinion.
green People v. Palmer (2008)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
App. 3d 1053, 1058 , 661 N.E.2d 1186, 1190 (1996)), and we adhere to that opinion.
green People v. Smith (2007)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
People v. Williams, 277 Ill.
green People v. Smith (2007)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
People v. Williams, 277 Ill.
green People v. Parker (2002)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
App. 3d 244, 249 , 775 N.E.2d 135, 140 (2002), quoting People v. Williams, 277 Ill.
green People v. Parker (2002)
Rule Authority · Ill. App. Ct.
App. 3d 244 , ___, 775 N.E.2d 135, 140 (2002), quoting People v. Williams , 277 Ill.
green People v. Balewa (2025)
Cited (see also) · Ill. App. Ct. · signal: see also
App. 3d 514, 526 (1993) (finding no error where the trial court told the defendant his “choices were representation by counsel or pro se, not anything in between”); see also People v. Williams, 277 Ill.
the appointment of standby counsel “frequently creates more problems than it solves and often is - 15 - No. 1-24-0123 viewed by defendants as an important factor in making the decision to proceed pro se” and “trial courts ought not act as ‘enablers’ for this unwise course of conduct”
green People v. Khan (2021)
Cited (see also) · Ill. App. Ct. · signal: see, e.g.
See, e.g., People v. Williams, 277 Ill.
“[N]o trial court in Illinois has been reversed for exercising its discretion to not appoint standby counsel, and this absence of reversals appears consistent with nationwide experience.” (Emphases in original.)