pivotal inquiry in Illinois

1984Briefly, it may be said that the pivotal factors to be considered to determine whether or not an exercise of such discretion is warranted are, the closeness of the case, the conduct of the trial judge, the extent to which questionable evidence may have contributed to a guilty verdict, the fairness of the trial in general, and the magnitude of the errors alleged. * * * We feel that the circumstances attendant on the proceedings below warrant an exercise of such discretion to review the propriety of the trial judge's denial of a hearing on the aforementioned pretrial motions." People v. Lagardo

1984Briefly, it may be said that the pivotal factors to be considered to determine whether or not an exercise of such discretion is warranted are, the closeness of the case, the conduct of the trial judge, the extent to which questionable evidence may have contributed to a guilty verdict, the fairness of the trial in general, and the magnitude of the errors alleged. *** We feel that the circumstances attendant on the proceedings below warrant an exercise of such discretion to review the propriety of the trial judge’s denial of a hearing on the aforementioned pretrial motions.” People v. Lagardo (1

2026The pivotal inquiry is whether the evidence supporting the postconviction petition casts “the trial evidence in a different light and undermines the court’s confidence in the judgment of -9- 1-21-1543-B guilt.” Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 48 (citing People v. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 97 ).

2024The pivotal inquiry is whether the evidence supporting the postconviction petition casts “the trial evidence in a different light and undermines the court’s confidence in the judgment of guilt.” Robinson, 2020 IL 123849, ¶ 48 (citing People v. Coleman, 2013 IL 113307, ¶ 97 ).

2011I agree with Ladeaux that for purposes of determining whether the actions of police violated the fourth amendment, the pivotal inquiry is whether the officer demanded that the defendant comply with the set-up procedure or merely requested compliance so that "`a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.'" Luedemann, 222 Ill.2d at 550 , 306 Ill.Dec. 94 , 857 N.E.2d 187 (quoting Bostick, 501 U.S. at 436 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ).

2011I agree with Ladeaux that for purposes of determining whether the actions of police violated the fourth amendment, the pivotal inquiry is whether the officer demanded that the defendant comply with the set-up procedure or merely requested compliance so that "`a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.'" Luedemann, 222 Ill.2d at 550 , 306 Ill.Dec. 94 , 857 N.E.2d 187 (quoting Bostick, 501 U.S. at 436 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ).

2011I agree with Ladeaux that for purposes of determining whether the actions of police violated the fourth amendment, the pivotal inquiry is whether the officer demanded that the defendant comply with the set-up procedure or merely requested compliance so that "`a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.'" Luedemann, 222 Ill.2d at 550 , 306 Ill.Dec. 94 , 857 N.E.2d 187 (quoting Bostick, 501 U.S. at 436 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ).

2011I agree with Ladeaux that for purposes of determining whether the actions of police violated the fourth amendment, the pivotal inquiry is whether the officer demanded that the defendant comply with the set-up procedure or merely requested compliance so that "`a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.'" Luedemann, 222 Ill.2d at 550 , 306 Ill.Dec. 94 , 857 N.E.2d 187 (quoting Bostick, 501 U.S. at 436 , 111 S.Ct. 2382 ).

1994(Brown v. Illinois (1975), 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 , 45 L.

1994(Brown v. Illinois (1975), 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 , 45 L.

1994Ed. 2d 633, 643 , 100 S. Ct. 2556, 2562 .) The pivotal factors to be considered include whether the accused was advised of his constitutional rights, the presence of intervening circumstances, the temporal proximity of the arrest and the statement, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct involved in the allegedly illegal detention.

1992Ed. 2d 633, 642-43 , 100 S. Ct. 2556, 2562 .) The pivotal factors to be considered include whether the accused was advised of his constitutional rights, the presence of intervening circumstances, the temporal proximity of the arrest and the statement, and the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct involved in the allegedly illegal detention.

1984(Schultz v. Gerstein (1977), 50 Ill.

1982(Schultz v. Gerstein (1977), 50 Ill.

2022Over the years, the Illinois courts have developed and applied three alternative tests for analyzing this provision of the Code: the “but for” test (id. at 423), the “substantial factor” test (Bloom v. Municipal Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, 339 Ill.

1991(Having v. Davies (1987), 159 Ill.

1988Plaintiff relies on Dowling v. MacLean Drug Co. (1928), 248 Ill.

1980The pivotal inquiry in a case where the defense of entrapment has been raised, the supreme court explained, is not whether the government may have supplied the substance but “whether the ‘criminal purpose’ of selling these substances originated with the defendants.” ( 77 Ill. 2d 396,404 .) The court further explained that by supplying an individual with controlled substances the government merely facilitates or provides the defendant with an opportunity to make an unlawful delivery.

1980In determining whether a defendant was predisposed to commit a crime, courts have looked at a variety of factors: whether a defendant was engaged in drug trafficking prior to the present incident or had otherwise engaged in criminal activity (People v. Dollen; People v. Strong; People v. Wells (1962), 25 Ill. 2d 146 , 182 N.E.2d 689 ; People v. Andreano (1978), 64 Ill.

1980In determining whether a defendant was predisposed to commit a crime, courts have looked at a variety of factors: whether a defendant was engaged in drug trafficking prior to the present incident or had otherwise engaged in criminal activity (People v. Dollen; People v. Strong; People v. Wells (1962), 25 Ill. 2d 146 , 182 N.E.2d 689 ; People v. Andreano (1978), 64 Ill.

1980In determining whether a defendant was predisposed to commit a crime, courts have looked at a variety of factors: whether a defendant was engaged in drug trafficking prior to the present incident or had otherwise engaged in criminal activity (People v. Dollen; People v. Strong; People v. Wells (1962), 25 Ill. 2d 146 , 182 N.E.2d 689 ; People v. Andreano (1978), 64 Ill.

1979The Warren court stated the pivotal test of the entrapment defense succinctly in Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 , 2 L.

1979The Warren court stated the pivotal test of the entrapment defense succinctly in Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 , 2 L.

1967People v. Bell, 61 Ill App2d 224, 209 NE2d 366 (1965).