merit claim in Illinois

2003In assessing the merit of a claim of self-defense, "a defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence, even if the facts on which the defense is based are inconsistent with a defendant's own testimony." (Emphasis original.) Lyda, 190 Ill.App.3d at 544 , 137 Ill.Dec. 405 , 546 N.E.2d 29 , citing People v. Janik, 127 Ill.2d 390, 398 , 130 Ill.Dec. 427 , 537 N.E.2d 756 (1989).

2003In assessing the merit of a claim of self-defense, “a defendant is entitled to the benefit of any defense shown by the entire evidence, even if the facts on which the defense is based are inconsistent with a defendant’s own testimony.” (Emphasis in original.) Lyda, 190 Ill.

1999The Jabbari court found no violation of due process in the investigatory process. [Citations.] The demands for due process are proportional to the weight of the interest being protected balanced against the countervailing interests of society so that, if after balancing these interests, the state’s exercise of power is deemed to be reasonable, the legislation will be upheld. [Citation.] The State of Illinois has a legitimate and significant interest in providing a simple, nonadversarial procedure for determining the merit of a claim made under the Act." Webb , 298 Ill.

1999The Jabbari court found no violation of due process in the investigatory process. [Citations.] The demands for due process are proportional to the weight of the interest being protected balanced against the countervailing interests of society so that, if after balancing these interests, the state’s exercise of power is deemed to be reasonable, the legislation will be upheld. [Citation.] The State of Illinois has a legitimate and significant interest in providing a simple, nonadversarial procedure for determining the merit of a claim made under the Act.” Webb, 298 Ill.

1998Gayle , 218 Ill.

1998Gayle, 218 Ill.

1996People v. McDaniels, 144 Ill.

1996People v. McDaniels, 144 Ill.App.3d 459, 463 , 98 Ill.Dec. 948 , 494 N.E.2d 1275 (1986).

2003The defendant is similarly entitled to present his theory of innocence "even if the trial court believes that the evidence offered in support of that defense is inconsistent or of doubtful credibility." Lyda, 190 Ill.App.3d at 545 , 137 Ill.Dec. 405 , 546 N.E.2d 29 , citing People v. Rodriguez, 96 Ill.App.3d 431, 436 , 51 Ill.Dec. 815 , 421 N.E.2d 323 (1981).

2003The defendant is similarly entitled to present his theory of innocence "even if the trial court believes that the evidence offered in support of that defense is inconsistent or of doubtful credibility." Lyda, 190 Ill.App.3d at 545 , 137 Ill.Dec. 405 , 546 N.E.2d 29 , citing People v. Rodriguez, 96 Ill.App.3d 431, 436 , 51 Ill.Dec. 815 , 421 N.E.2d 323 (1981).

1995In another instructive case, Merrick v. Thomas (1994), 246 Neb. 658 , 522 N.W.2d 402 , the complaint alleged that the plaintiff was a prospective employee who had to take a merit test as a prerequisite to employment.

1995In another instructive case, Merrick v. Thomas (1994), 246 Neb. 658 , 522 N.W.2d 402 , the complaint alleged that the plaintiff was a prospective employee who had to take a merit test as a prerequisite to employment.

1986App. 2d 480 , 249 N.E.2d 670 .) It is evident that the judge was evaluating the merit of the defense even before that defense had been presented and at a time when the only evidence before the court was the direct examination of the alleged victim.

1977In order to determine the merit of his claim it is necessary to review the circumstances surrounding the discovery of each item. • 4, 5 Since the arrest was lawful, a search incident thereto, limited to the area within defendant's immediate control at the time of arrest, was proper. ( Chimel v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 752 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 .) The money and train tickets found on defendant's person were, of course, properly seized.

1977In order to determine the merit of his claim it is necessary to review the circumstances surrounding the discovery of each item. • 4, 5 Since the arrest was lawful, a search incident thereto, limited to the area within defendant's immediate control at the time of arrest, was proper. ( Chimel v. California (1969), 395 U.S. 752 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 .) The money and train tickets found on defendant's person were, of course, properly seized.

1948Of striking similarity to the case at bar is Neill v. Kimball, 387 Ill. 58 .