Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
36 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1972–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Freygreen2 sentences2022See People v. Frey, 103 Ill. 2d 327, 330 (1984) (upholding the validity of a jury waiver where defendant’s counsel, in defendant’s presence, advised the court that defendant elected to waive his right to a jury trial, and defendant made no objection to the assertion). 2005In re R.A.B., 197 Ill. 2d at 364 ; People v. Frey, 103 Ill. 2d 327, 332 (1984). | 3 | 3 |
In Re RABgreen2 sentences2017The validity of a jury waiver cannot rest on any precise formula, but, rather, “depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. [Citation.] A jury waiver may be valid if it is made by defense counsel in the defendant’s presence and the defendant does not object.” In re R.A.B., 197 Ill. 2d 358, 364 (2001). ¶ 24 Here, the record contains no evidence that defendant waived his right to a jury trial either in writing or in open court. 2017The validity of a jury waiver cannot rest on any precise formula, but, rather, “depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. [Citation.] A jury waiver may be valid if it is made by defense counsel in the defendant’s presence and the defendant does not object.” In re R.A.B., 197 Ill. 2d 358, 364 (2001). ¶ 24 Here, the record contains no evidence that defendant waived his right to a jury trial either in writing or in open court. | 2 | 8 |
People v. Bannistergreen2 sentences2022Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d at 66 . ¶ 39 On appeal, it is the burden of a defendant challenging the validity of a jury waiver to establish that the waiver was not understanding or voluntary. 2020The validity of a jury waiver “depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 66 (2008). | 2 | 6 |
People v. Braceygreen2 sentences2021The validity of a jury waiver “cannot be determined by application of a precise formula, but rather turns on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.” Bracey, 213 Ill. 2d at 269 . ¶ 18 “Generally, a jury waiver is valid if it is made by defense counsel in defendant’s presence in open court, without an objection by defendant.” Id. at 270 . 2021The validity of a jury waiver “cannot be determined by application of a precise formula, but rather turns on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.” Bracey, 213 Ill. 2d at 269 . ¶ 18 “Generally, a jury waiver is valid if it is made by defense counsel in defendant’s presence in open court, without an objection by defendant.” Id. at 270 . | 1 | 10 |
People v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2025App. 3d 236, 238 (2006) (“A reviewing court’s determination of the validity of a jury waiver is not subject to a precise formula, but instead depends upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case.”); People v. Taylor, 101 Ill. 2d 508, 520 (1984) (determination of understanding waiver “necessarily depends” on facts and circumstances). ¶ 20 Nonetheless, the court proceedings must adhere to some baseline rules. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hatchergreen1 sentence2024Id. ¶ 47. ¶ 11 We find the defendant’s emphasis on the trial court’s failure to explain the difference between a jury trial and a bench trial to be unavailing. 1 “While the trial court has a duty to ensure that a defendant’s waiver of his or her right to a jury trial is made expressly and understandingly, the court is not required to provide any particular admonition or information regarding that right.” 1 We strongly encourage the trial court to take the minimal amount of time required to explain to future defendants, on the record, the difference between a jury trial and a bench trial when d | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Parker
green
2 sentences2023People v. Parker, 2016 IL App (1st) 141597, ¶ 47 . 2022Parker, 2016 IL App (1st) 141597, ¶ 47 . | 2 | 2022–2023 |
People v. Stokes
green
2 sentences1998People v. Stokes, 281 Ill. 1998People v. Stokes , 281 Ill. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Buschauer
green
1 sentence2025Buschauer, 2025 IL App (1st) 232365, ¶ 40 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Smith
green
1 sentence2025The trial court must ensure the defendant’s waiver was made “expressly and understandingly.” Smith, 106 Ill. 2d at 334 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Reed
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Foster
green
1 sentence2024Id. ¶ 47. ¶ 11 We find the defendant’s emphasis on the trial court’s failure to explain the difference between a jury trial and a bench trial to be unavailing. 1 “While the trial court has a duty to ensure that a defendant’s waiver of his or her right to a jury trial is made expressly and understandingly, the court is not required to provide any particular admonition or information regarding that right.” 1 We strongly encourage the trial court to take the minimal amount of time required to explain to future defendants, on the record, the difference between a jury trial and a bench trial when d | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Harper
green
1 sentence2021Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d at 66; Harper, 2017 IL App (4th) 150045, ¶ 31 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Tucker
green
1 sentence2021“Since the accused speaks and acts through his attorney, the trial court is entitled to rely on the defense attorney to execute his professional responsibilities.” People v. Tucker, 183 Ill. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. McGee
green
2 sentences1996People v. Sandham, 276 Ill.App.3d 86, 88 , 212 Ill.Dec. 518 , 657 N.E.2d 719 (1995); People v. McGee, 268 Ill.App.3d 582, 585 , 206 Ill.Dec. 324 , 645 N.E.2d 329 (1994). 1996People v. Sandham, 276 Ill.App.3d 86, 88 , 212 Ill.Dec. 518 , 657 N.E.2d 719 (1995); People v. McGee, 268 Ill.App.3d 582, 585 , 206 Ill.Dec. 324 , 645 N.E.2d 329 (1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Sandham
green
2 sentences1996People v. Sandham, 276 Ill. 1996People v. Sandham, 276 Ill.App.3d 86, 88 , 212 Ill.Dec. 518 , 657 N.E.2d 719 (1995); People v. McGee, 268 Ill.App.3d 582, 585 , 206 Ill.Dec. 324 , 645 N.E.2d 329 (1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Hall
green
1 sentence1993App. 3d 864 , 583 N.E.2d 54 , we recently invoked the plain error rule to review the validity of a jury waiver even though the State argued waiver, because the defendant did not raise the issue in his post-trial motion. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
The PEOPLE v. Richardson
green
2 sentences1977(People v. Richardson (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 497, 499 , 207 N.E.2d 453 .) While the trial court may not perfunctorily discharge its duty to explain the right to a jury trial to an accused, this is not to suggest that an explanation of the ramifications of such waiver is necessary unless there is an indication the accused does not understand his right to a jury trial. 1977(People v. Richardson (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 497, 499 , 207 N.E.2d 453 .) While the trial court may not perfunctorily discharge its duty to explain the right to a jury trial to an accused, this is not to suggest that an explanation of the ramifications of such waiver is necessary unless there is an indication the accused does not understand his right to a jury trial. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Bradley
green
2 sentences1972People v. Bradley, 131 Ill.App.2d 91 , 266 N.E.2d 469 . 1972People v. Bradley, 131 Ill.App.2d 91 , 266 N.E.2d 469 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
The People v. Wesley
green
2 sentences1972(People v. Wesley, 30 Ill.2d 131 , 195 N.E.2d 708 .) However, a lengthy explanation of the consequences of a jury trial is not a prerequisite to the validity of a jury waiver. 1972(People v. Wesley, 30 Ill.2d 131 , 195 N.E.2d 708 .) However, a lengthy explanation of the consequences of a jury trial is not a prerequisite to the validity of a jury waiver. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.