criminal conviction constitutes violation in Illinois

2026“The rule is well-established that the State’s knowing use of perjured testimony to obtain a criminal conviction constitutes a violation of due process of law.” People v. Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d 326, 345 (1997).

2022Failure to Object to Perjured Testimony and Hearsay - 13 - ¶ 47 Defendant alleged counsel was ineffective for “allowing [the] State to use perjured testimony” from Wheeler and Parker. “[T]he State’s knowing use of perjured testimony to obtain a criminal conviction constitutes a violation of due process of law.” People v. Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d 326, 345 , 680 N.E.2d 321, 331 (1997).

2011Olinger, 176 Ill.2d at 345 , 223 Ill. *31 Dec. 588, 680 N.E.2d 321 (citing People v. Jimerson, 166 Ill.2d 211, 223 , 209 Ill.Dec. 738 , 652 N.E.2d 278 (1995)).

2011Olinger, 176 Ill.2d at 345 , 223 Ill. *31 Dec. 588, 680 N.E.2d 321 (citing People v. Jimerson, 166 Ill.2d 211, 223 , 209 Ill.Dec. 738 , 652 N.E.2d 278 (1995)).

2024Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d at 128-29 ¶ 49 It is well settled that the “State’s knowing use of perjured testimony to obtain a criminal conviction constitutes a violation of due process.” People v. Smith, 352 Ill.

2019“The State’s knowing use of perjured testimony to obtain a criminal conviction constitutes a violation of due process.” People v. Smith, 352 Ill.

2020Alleged Due Process Violation ¶ 56 Defendant asserts he pleaded the gist of a constitutional claim that the State violated his right to due process when it knowingly used Officer Yandell’s false testimony to obtain his convictions. ¶ 57 “It is well established that the State’s knowing use of perjured testimony in order to obtain a criminal conviction constitutes a violation of due process of law.” People v. Simpson, 204 Ill. 2d 536, 552 , 792 N.E.2d 265, 278 (2001).

2020Alleged Due Process Violation ¶ 56 Defendant asserts he pleaded the gist of a constitutional claim that the State violated his right to due process when it knowingly used Officer Yandell’s false testimony to obtain his convictions. ¶ 57 “It is well established that the State’s knowing use of perjured testimony in order to obtain a criminal conviction constitutes a violation of due process of law.” People v. Simpson, 204 Ill. 2d 536, 552 , 792 N.E.2d 265, 278 (2001).

2026“The same result obtains when the State, 18 although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears.” Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 268 (1959).

1995This court’s precedents, in accord with those of the United States Supreme Court, have long recognized that "the deprivation of an individual’s liberty based upon false testimony is contrary to fundamental principles of fairness in a civilized society.” (People v. Cihlar (1986), 111 Ill. 2d 212, 216-17 ; see also Napue v. Illinois (1959), 360 U.S. 264 , 3 L.

2023People v. Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d 326, 345 (1997). “ ‘In order to establish a violation of due process, the prosecutor actually trying the case need not have known that the testimony was false; rather, knowledge on the part of any representative or agent of the prosecution is enough.’” People v. Mitchell, 2012 IL App (1st) 100907, ¶ 66 (quoting Ollinger, 176 Ill. 2d at 347 ); People v. Smith, 352 Ill.

2023People v. Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d 326, 345 (1997). “ ‘In order to establish a violation of due process, the prosecutor actually trying the case need not have known that the testimony was false; rather, knowledge on the part of any representative or agent of the prosecution is enough.’” People v. Mitchell, 2012 IL App (1st) 100907, ¶ 66 (quoting Ollinger, 176 Ill. 2d at 347 ); People v. Smith, 352 Ill.

1999People v. Diaz, 297 Ill.

1999See Diaz, 297 Ill.

2024App. 3d 1095, 1101 (2004); see also People v. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d 475, 487 (1996) (“the use of false testimony underlying a conviction is a due process violation.”).

2020A conviction obtained by this use of false testimony must be set aside “if there is a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the verdict.” People v. Thurman, 337 Ill.

2020A conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony must be set aside “if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Lucas, 203 Ill. 2d 410, 422 , 787 N.E.2d 113, 121 (2002). ¶ 58 Defendant complains the State knowingly used Officer Yandell’s false testimony that Alvarado was in custody at the time Gregory was killed.

2020A conviction obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony must be set aside “if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Lucas, 203 Ill. 2d 410, 422 , 787 N.E.2d 113, 121 (2002). ¶ 58 Defendant complains the State knowingly used Officer Yandell’s false testimony that Alvarado was in custody at the time Gregory was killed.