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.
32 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2026 20 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. Herrongreen2 sentences2025See People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶¶ 132-34 . ¶ 31 “Plain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar 11 as a defendant in either case must show he was prejudiced: that the evidence is so closely balanced that the alleged error alone would tip the scales of justice against him, i.e., that the verdict ‘may have resulted from the error and not the evidence’ properly adduced at trial (see People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 178 , (2005) (plain error)); or that there was a 2024See People v. White, 2011 IL 109689 . ¶ 36 “Plain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar as a defendant in either case must show he was prejudiced: that the evidence is so closely balanced that the alleged error alone would tip the scales of justice against him, i.e., that the verdict ‘may have resulted from the error and not the evidence’ properly adduced at trial (see People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 178 (2005) (plain error)); or that there was a ‘reasonable pro | 10 | 19 |
People v. Whitegreen2 sentences2026“A failure by the defendant to satisfy either prong of the Strickland standard precludes a finding of ineffective assistance.” Peterson, 2017 IL 120331, ¶ 79 . ¶ 32 “Plain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar as a defendant in either case must show he was prejudiced.” People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 133 . 2025See People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶¶ 132-34 . ¶ 31 “Plain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar 11 as a defendant in either case must show he was prejudiced: that the evidence is so closely balanced that the alleged error alone would tip the scales of justice against him, i.e., that the verdict ‘may have resulted from the error and not the evidence’ properly adduced at trial (see People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 178 , (2005) (plain error)); or that there was a | 8 | 26 |
People v. Piatkowskigreen2 sentences2023Under plain error review, we will grant relief to a defendant on otherwise-forfeited issues in either of two circumstances: “ ‘(1) clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’ ” People v. Phillips, 2022 IL App (1st) 1817 2016See also People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564-65, 568, 571-72 (2007). ¶ 19 In People v. White, 2011 IL 109689 , our supreme court noted that a defendant may obtain reversal of his conviction under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error only if he can show that he was prejudiced by the alleged error. | 8 | 8 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025See People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶¶ 132-34 . ¶ 31 “Plain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar 11 as a defendant in either case must show he was prejudiced: that the evidence is so closely balanced that the alleged error alone would tip the scales of justice against him, i.e., that the verdict ‘may have resulted from the error and not the evidence’ properly adduced at trial (see People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 178 , (2005) (plain error)); or that there was a 2024See People v. White, 2011 IL 109689 . ¶ 36 “Plain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar as a defendant in either case must show he was prejudiced: that the evidence is so closely balanced that the alleged error alone would tip the scales of justice against him, i.e., that the verdict ‘may have resulted from the error and not the evidence’ properly adduced at trial (see People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 178 (2005) (plain error)); or that there was a ‘reasonable pro | 2 | 10 |
People v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence2023Under plain error review, we will grant relief to a defendant on otherwise-forfeited issues in either of two circumstances: “ ‘(1) clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.’ ” People v. Phillips, 2022 IL App (1st) 1817 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2022People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010). ¶ 51 Plain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an ineffective assistance claim based on evidentiary error. | 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. Belknap
green
2 sentences2015See also People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564-65, 568, 571-72 (2007); People v. Belknap, 2013 IL App (3d) 110833 , ¶ 92 n.3, rev'd on other grounds, 2014 IL 117094 ; People v. Vesey, 2011 IL App (3d) 090570, ¶ 18 . ¶ 69 In White, our supreme court noted that a defendant may obtain reversal of his conviction under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error only if he can show that he was prejudiced by the alleged error. 2015White goes on to posit: “Plain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar as a defendant in either case must show he was prejudiced: that the evidence is so closely balanced that the alleged error alone would tip the scales of justice against him, i.e., that the verdict ‘may have resulted from the error and not the evidence’ properly adduced at trial ***.” White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 133 (quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 , 178 2005)). ¶ 48 Indeed, the parties and | 3 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Vesey
green
2 sentences2015See also People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564-65, 568, 571-72 (2007); People v. Belknap, 2013 IL App (3d) 110833 , ¶ 92 n.3, rev'd on other grounds, 2014 IL 117094 ; People v. Vesey, 2011 IL App (3d) 090570, ¶ 18 . ¶ 69 In White, our supreme court noted that a defendant may obtain reversal of his conviction under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error only if he can show that he was prejudiced by the alleged error. 2015See also People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564-65, 568, 571-72 (2007); People v. Belknap, 2013 IL App (3d) 110833 , ¶ 92 n.3, rev'd on other grounds, 2014 IL 117094 ; People v. Vesey, 2011 IL App (3d) 090570, ¶ 18 . ¶ 69 In White, our supreme court noted that a defendant may obtain reversal of his conviction under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error only if he can show that he was prejudiced by the alleged error. | 3 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Belknap
green
2 sentences2015See also People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564-65, 568, 571-72 (2007); People v. Belknap, 2013 IL App (3d) 110833 , ¶ 92 n.3, rev'd on other grounds, 2014 IL 117094 ; People v. Vesey, 2011 IL App (3d) 090570, ¶ 18 . ¶ 69 In White, our supreme court noted that a defendant may obtain reversal of his conviction under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error only if he can show that he was prejudiced by the alleged error. 2015See also People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 564-65, 568, 571-72 (2007); People v. Belknap, 2013 IL App (3d) 110833 , ¶ 92 n.3, rev'd on other grounds, 2014 IL 117094 ; People v. Vesey, 2011 IL App (3d) 090570, ¶ 18 . ¶ 69 In White, our supreme court noted that a defendant may obtain reversal of his conviction under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error only if he can show that he was prejudiced by the alleged error. | 3 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Peterson
green
2 sentences2026“A failure by the defendant to satisfy either prong of the Strickland standard precludes a finding of ineffective assistance.” Peterson, 2017 IL 120331, ¶ 79 . ¶ 32 “Plain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel based on evidentiary error insofar as a defendant in either case must show he was prejudiced.” People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 133 . 2021“A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Peterson, 2017 IL 120331, ¶ 79 , 106 N.E.3d 944 . “[W]e may dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim by proceeding directly to the prejudice prong without addressing counsel’s performance.” Hale, 2013 IL 113140, ¶ 17 . ¶ 29 In People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 133 , 956 N.E.2d 379 , the supreme court highlighted the similarities between first-prong plain error and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel: “Plain-error r | 2 | 2021–2026 |
People v. White
green
2 sentences2011Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed, finding, first, that a total prohibition of defense counsel from observing the moment of identification was a violation of the accused's sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, but concluding thereafter that defendant's sixth amendment right to counsel had not attached at the time the lineup was conducted. *381 395 Ill.App.3d 797 , 334 Ill.Dec. 943 , 917 N.E.2d 1018 . ¶ 2 Defendant filed a petition for leave to appeal to this court, arguing that (1) the appellate court erred when it held that defendant's sixth amendment right to couns 2011Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed, finding, first, that a total prohibition of defense counsel from observing the moment of identification was a violation of the accused’s sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, but concluding thereafter that defendant’s sixth amendment right to counsel had not attached at the time the lineup was conducted. 395 Ill. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Coleman
green
1 sentence2023Coleman, 2014 IL App (5th) 110274, ¶ 128 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Schoonover
green
1 sentence2022“The plain error doctrine is applicable when a clear or obvious error occurred and (1) the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant (first-prong plain error) or (2) the error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process (second-prong plain error).” Schoonover, 2021 IL 124832, ¶ 27 . ¶ 52 First, we note “[p]lain-error review under the closely-balanced-evidence prong of plain error is similar to an analysis for ineffective assistance of counsel ba | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Hale
green
1 sentence2021“A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Peterson, 2017 IL 120331, ¶ 79 , 106 N.E.3d 944 . “[W]e may dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim by proceeding directly to the prejudice prong without addressing counsel’s performance.” Hale, 2013 IL 113140, ¶ 17 . ¶ 29 In People v. White, 2011 IL 109689, ¶ 133 , 956 N.E.2d 379 , the supreme court highlighted the similarities between first-prong plain error and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel: “Plain-error r | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.