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.
11 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2015 0 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. Easleygreen2 sentences2011Substantial Prejudice ¶ 153 A State’s closing will lead to reversal only if the prosecutor’s remarks created “substantial prejudice.” Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d at 123 ; People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53, 64 (2003); People v. Easley, 148 Ill. 2d 281, 332 (1992) (“The remarks by the prosecutor, while improper, do not amount to substantial prejudice.”). 2010Substantial Prejudice A State’s closing will lead to reversal only if the prosecutor’s remarks created “substantial prejudice.” Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d at 123 ; People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53, 64 (2003); People v. Easley, 148 Ill. 2d 281, 332 (1992) (“The remarks by the prosecutor, while improper, do not amount to substantial prejudice”). | 6 | 6 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2011Substantial Prejudice ¶ 153 A State’s closing will lead to reversal only if the prosecutor’s remarks created “substantial prejudice.” Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d at 123 ; People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53, 64 (2003); People v. Easley, 148 Ill. 2d 281, 332 (1992) (“The remarks by the prosecutor, while improper, do not amount to substantial prejudice.”). 2010Substantial Prejudice A State’s closing will lead to reversal only if the prosecutor’s remarks created “substantial prejudice.” Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d at 123 ; People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53, 64 (2003); People v. Easley, 148 Ill. 2d 281, 332 (1992) (“The remarks by the prosecutor, while improper, do not amount to substantial prejudice”). | 5 | 5 |
People v. Wheelergreen2 sentences2011Substantial Prejudice ¶ 153 A State’s closing will lead to reversal only if the prosecutor’s remarks created “substantial prejudice.” Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d at 123 ; People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53, 64 (2003); People v. Easley, 148 Ill. 2d 281, 332 (1992) (“The remarks by the prosecutor, while improper, do not amount to substantial prejudice.”). 2010Substantial Prejudice A State’s closing will lead to reversal only if the prosecutor’s remarks created “substantial prejudice.” Wheeler, 226 Ill. 2d at 123 ; People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53, 64 (2003); People v. Easley, 148 Ill. 2d 281, 332 (1992) (“The remarks by the prosecutor, while improper, do not amount to substantial prejudice”). | 1 | 6 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2009See Johnson, 385 Ill. 2009See Johnson, 385 Ill.App.3d at 585, 325 Ill.Dec. 611 , 898 N.E.2d 658 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2009See Johnson, 385 Ill.App.3d at 585, 325 Ill.Dec. 611 , 898 N.E.2d 658 . | 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. Criss
green
2 sentences2015In the context of a jury trial, one court explained the rules as follows: “It is well settled that it is proper for a trial court to permit the jury to use written transcripts of recorded conversations to assist them while they listen to the conversations, when the transcripts are used solely for this limited purpose and are collected from the jurors after they have listened to the tapes. [Citations.] Even when used for this limited purpose, however, the trial court should admonish the jury as to the purpose of the transcripts and to instruct the jury to determine for itself the events transpi 2015In the context of a jury trial, one court explained the rules as follows: “It is well settled that it is proper for a trial court to permit the jury to use written transcripts of recorded conversations to assist them while they listen to the conversations, when the transcripts are used solely for this limited purpose and are collected from the jurors after they have listened to the tapes. [Citations.] Even when used for this limited purpose, however, the trial court should admonish the jury as to the purpose of the transcripts and to instruct the jury to determine for itself the events transpi | 4 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2010Dec. 519 , 909 N.E.2d 232 ("In any event, like the Johnson court, we leave the resolution of this issue to another day, as our conclusion would be the same applying either standard."). (c). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.