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.
35 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2026 21 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2026People v. Evans, 2021 IL App (1st) 172809, ¶ 1 . ¶5 Three years later, on April 5, 2024, defendant moved for leave to file a third postconviction petition, alleging that the State committed a Brady violation (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)), when the State did not provide the police’s “street file” relating to his case. 2025First Postconviction Petition and Appeal -2- ¶7 On December 10, 2012, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition, alleging (1) the State committed a Brady violation (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)), where White previously told prosecutors that defendant was not involved in the murder; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel where counsel failed to present Amos’ recantation affidavit at trial and failed to investigate and locate Michelle Pierson, an eyewitness to the murder; (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise trial counsels’ ineffectiveness; (4 | 4 | 18 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2019The court held this was “impermissible because ‘the evidence being relied upon to support a freestanding claim of actual innocence’ cannot be ‘used to supplement an assertion of a constitutional violation with respect to defendant’s trial.’ People v. Brown, 371 Ill. App. 3d 972, 984 (2007). 2017This is impermissible because “the evidence being relied upon to support a freestanding claim of actual innocence” cannot be “used to supplement an assertion of a constitutional violation with respect to defendant’s trial.” People v. Brown, 371 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Hobleygreen2 sentences2017I, § 2), a [petitioner] can raise in a post-conviction proceeding a ‘free-standing’ claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence. [Citation.] A free-standing claim of innocence means that the newly discovered evidence being relied upon ‘is not being used to supplement an assertion of a constitutional violation with respect to [the] trial.’ [Citations.]” People v. Orange, 195 Ill. 2d 437, 459 (2001) (quoting People v. Hobley, 182 Ill. 2d 404, 443-44 (1998)). ¶ 30 Here, Gonzalez is offering newly discovered evidence—Guevara’s pattern of coercing, improperly influencing, and intim 2016I, § 2), a petitioner can raise in a postconviction proceeding a ‘free-standing’ claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence. [Citation.] A free-standing claim of innocence means that the newly discovered evidence being relied upon is not being used to supplement an assertion of a constitutional violation with respect to [the] trial. [Citations.]” People v. Orange, 195 Ill. 2d 437, 459 (2001) (quoting People v. Hobley, 182 Ill. 2d 404, 443-44 (1998)). ¶ 30 Here, Gonzalez is offering newly discovered evidence -- Guevara’s pattern of coercing, improperly influencing and intimida | 2 | 3 |
People v. Hoodgreen2 sentences2017See People v. Hood, 213 Ill. 2d 244, 256 (2004). ¶ 23 Defendant argues that Officer “Haase’s testimony, [which was] inconsistent with his police report as to when Officer [Haase] commenced the 20[-]minute observation period, was clearly impeaching.” We disagree. 2016See People v. Hood, 213 Ill. 2d 244, 256 (2004). ¶ 23 Defendant argues that Officer “Haase’s testimony, [which was] inconsistent with his police report as to when Officer [Haase] commenced the 20[-]minute observation period, was clearly impeaching.” We disagree. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Beamangreen2 sentences2017People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56, 73 (2008). 2016People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56, 73 (2008). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Orangegreen2 sentences2017I, § 2), a [petitioner] can raise in a post-conviction proceeding a ‘free-standing’ claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence. [Citation.] A free-standing claim of innocence means that the newly discovered evidence being relied upon ‘is not being used to supplement an assertion of a constitutional violation with respect to [the] trial.’ [Citations.]” People v. Orange, 195 Ill. 2d 437, 459 (2001) (quoting People v. Hobley, 182 Ill. 2d 404, 443-44 (1998)). ¶ 30 Here, Gonzalez is offering newly discovered evidence—Guevara’s pattern of coercing, improperly influencing, and intim 2016I, § 2), a petitioner can raise in a postconviction proceeding a ‘free-standing’ claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence. [Citation.] A free-standing claim of innocence means that the newly discovered evidence being relied upon is not being used to supplement an assertion of a constitutional violation with respect to [the] trial. [Citations.]” People v. Orange, 195 Ill. 2d 437, 459 (2001) (quoting People v. Hobley, 182 Ill. 2d 404, 443-44 (1998)). ¶ 30 Here, Gonzalez is offering newly discovered evidence -- Guevara’s pattern of coercing, improperly influencing and intimida | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hodgesgreen2 sentences2021ANALYSIS ¶ 23 Defendant contends that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his pro se postconviction petition where he made arguable claims that his trial counsel was ineffective and that the State committed a Brady violation. ¶ 24 The Act provides a method for a defendant to collaterally attack a conviction by asserting it resulted from a “substantial denial” of his constitutional rights. 725 ILCS 5/122-1 (West 2016); People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 9 (2009). 2021People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 17 . | 1 | 2 |
Illinois v. Fishergreen1 sentence2022This argument lacks merit. ¶ 29 In Brady, 373 U.S. 83 , the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant’s due process rights are violated when the State “suppresses or fails to disclose material exculpatory evidence.” Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544, 547 (2004) (describing the Brady rule). | 1 | 1 |
Secura Insurance v. Illinois Farmers Insurancegreen1 sentence2022See People v. Hansen, 2011 IL App (2d) 081226, ¶ 6 (citing Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209, 213 (2009)) (“A timely filed notice of appeal is both jurisdictional and mandatory.”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hansengreen1 sentence2022See People v. Hansen, 2011 IL App (2d) 081226, ¶ 6 (citing Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209, 213 (2009)) (“A timely filed notice of appeal is both jurisdictional and mandatory.”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Holmesgreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., People v. Holmes, 2016 IL App (1st) 132357, ¶ 65 (“[F]orfeiture is a limitation on the parties and not the reviewing court.”). ¶ 33 As stated, defendant raised the following additional claims in his motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition: (1) “police misconduct” in that officers failed to report several instances in which one of the State’s witnesses, Alex Garcia, who worked as a confidential informant, provided fake drugs to the officers; (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine Garcia about the instances in which he provided police officers w | 1 | 1 |
People v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2021See People v. Gonzalez, 2016 IL App (1st) 141660 , ¶ 30 (the defendant could not use newly discovered evidence of a detective’s pattern and practice of framing suspects by orchestrating false identification evidence to supplement his assertation that the State committed a Brady violation and support his claim of actual innocence, and his actual innocence claim failed). ¶ 50 We acknowledge that in People v. Martinez, 2021 IL App (1st) 190490 , a division of this court concluded that Hobley was “inconsistent with the Illinois Supreme Court’s more recent pronouncements on actual innocence.” Id. ¶ | 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. Coleman
green
2 sentences2022Id. (citing Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d at 393 , quoting Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436 ). ¶ 185 In this case, the defendant claims that the State committed a Brady violation because the State failed to disclose or provide a recording of Dawn’s second threatening voicemail message left on his cell phone answering system. 2021Id. (citing Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d at 393 , quoting Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436 ). ¶ 30 In this case, the defendant claims that the State committed a Brady violation because the State failed to disclose information about its deal with the victim in exchange for his testimony at trial. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Kyles v. Whitley
green
2 sentences2022Id. (citing Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d at 393 , quoting Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436 ). ¶ 185 In this case, the defendant claims that the State committed a Brady violation because the State failed to disclose or provide a recording of Dawn’s second threatening voicemail message left on his cell phone answering system. 2022Id. (citing Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d at 393 , quoting Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436 ). ¶ 185 In this case, the defendant claims that the State committed a Brady violation because the State failed to disclose or provide a recording of Dawn’s second threatening voicemail message left on his cell phone answering system. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
People v. Harris
green
1 sentence2026Harris, 206 Ill. 2d at 298 . ¶ 45 Here, defendant argues that the State committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose that Officer Langan shot an unarmed juvenile suspect in an unrelated case in March 2022. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Evans
green
1 sentence2026People v. Evans, 2021 IL App (1st) 172809, ¶ 1 . ¶5 Three years later, on April 5, 2024, defendant moved for leave to file a third postconviction petition, alleging that the State committed a Brady violation (Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)), when the State did not provide the police’s “street file” relating to his case. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Patrick
green
1 sentence2023Defendant alleged that this claim was supported by newly discovered evidence that the State was in possession of the jacket. -2- (2) The State committed a Brady violation when it did not inform the defense that it was in possession of the leather jacket and therefore defendant’s armed robbery sentence is void. (3) Because defendant was indicted, convicted and sentenced for armed robbery of C.C.’s jacket and the State possessed that jacket, his armed robbery sentence is void. (4) The State committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose C.C.’s criminal history prior to her trial testimony, a | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Buffer
green
2 sentences2022Austin v. Everhart, 2015 IL App (4th) 140968-U , ¶ 4. ¶5 On remand, defendant, through counsel, filed an amended petition arguing (1) defendant’s transfer from juvenile court was void, (2) defendant was entitled to a new trial because the State committed a Brady violation (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)), and (3) defendant was entitled to a new sentencing hearing pursuant to People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327 , 137 N.E.3d 763 . 2022Austin v. Everhart, 2015 IL App (4th) 140968-U , ¶ 4. ¶5 On remand, defendant, through counsel, filed an amended petition arguing (1) defendant’s transfer from juvenile court was void, (2) defendant was entitled to a new trial because the State committed a Brady violation (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)), and (3) defendant was entitled to a new sentencing hearing pursuant to People v. Buffer, 2019 IL 122327 , 137 N.E.3d 763 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Collins
green
1 sentence2022Roldan thus does not assist the defendant. ¶ 27 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, as we are required to do (Collins, 106 Ill. 2d at 261 ), the defendant’s convictions were sufficiently supported by the evidence. ¶ 28 The defendant’s second argument on appeal is that the State committed a Brady violation by failing to preserve and tender the Snapchat story that C.R. created on the evening of the assault. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Bailey
green
1 sentence2020Although only a prima facie showing of cause and prejudice needs to be established (People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 24 ), a defendant must establish both cause and prejudice as to each individual claim asserted in his proposed successive postconviction petition (Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 463 ; 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2018)). ¶ 18 Defendant argues that he should be allowed to file a successive postconviction petition because (1) the State committed a Brady violation when it did not turn over the investigative reports and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Pitsonbarger
green
1 sentence2020Although only a prima facie showing of cause and prejudice needs to be established (People v. Bailey, 2017 IL 121450, ¶ 24 ), a defendant must establish both cause and prejudice as to each individual claim asserted in his proposed successive postconviction petition (Pitsonbarger, 205 Ill. 2d at 463 ; 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f) (West 2018)). ¶ 18 Defendant argues that he should be allowed to file a successive postconviction petition because (1) the State committed a Brady violation when it did not turn over the investigative reports and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2020That petition raised the following five claims: (1) he was actually innocent based on newly discovered evidence; (2) the State committed a Brady violation by not disclosing that prosecutors promised Butler that his testimony would assist his brother in receiving a reduced sentence; (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call three available alibi witnesses; (4) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the identification testimony of Scott and Richardson; and (5) he received an unconstitutional de facto life sentence under -9- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.