citizen immunity in Illinois

1939If the fact of the witness being in danger be once made to appear, great latitude should be allowed to him in judging for himself of the effect of any particular question. ’ ” In People v. Spain, 307 Ill. 283, 289 , the Supreme Court said: “. . . the constitutional provisions quoted should be applied in a broad and liberal spirit in order to secure to the citizen that immunity from every species of self-accusation implied in the brief but comprehensive language in which they are expressed. . . .

1924(People v. Spain, 307 Ill. 283 ; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 , 12 Sup. Ct. 195.) A witness cannot claim the privilege of silence for a purely fanciful or sentimental reason or for purposes of securing from prosecution some third person who is interested in concealing the facts to which the witness could testify, (People v. Spain, supra,) but if the proposed evidence has a tendency to incriminate the witness or to establish a link in the chain of evidence which may lead to his conviction, or if the proposed evidence will disclose the names of persons upon whose testimony the witness

1924(People v. Spain, 307 Ill. 283 ; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 , 12 Sup. Ct. 195.) A witness cannot claim the privilege of silence for a purely fanciful or sentimental reason or for purposes of securing from prosecution some third person who is interested in concealing the facts to which the witness could testify, (People v. Spain, supra,) but if the proposed evidence has a tendency to incriminate the witness or to establish a link in the chain of evidence which may lead to his conviction, or if the proposed evidence will disclose the names of persons upon whose testimony the witness

1923(Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 , 12 Sup. Ct. 195; Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71 , 41 Sup. Ct. 26; People v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219 , 38 N. E. 303 ; People v. Reardon, 197 N. Y. 236 , 90 N. E. 829 ; Ex parte Cohen, 104 Cal. 524 , 38 Pac. 364 ; In re Beer, 17 N. D. 184 , 115 N. W. 672 .) The security which they afford to all citizens against the zeal of the public prosecutor or public clamor for the punishment of crime should not be impaired by any narrow or technical views in their application to such a state of facts as appears from the record before us.

1977(In re Boykin (1968), 39 Ill. 2d. 617, 237 N.E.2d 460 .) This decision emphasized, among other things, the “complete absence of any possible element of gain to the anonymous informant from furnishing false information ” ° ( 39 Ill. 2d 617, 619 .) Recently the ordinary citizen rule was applied to a search warrant in a murder case wherein the court noted that the reliability of a citizen informant may be established by corroborating factors developed as the result of subsequent police investigation.

1977(In re Boykin (1968), 39 Ill. 2d. 617, 237 N.E.2d 460 .) This decision emphasized, among other things, the “complete absence of any possible element of gain to the anonymous informant from furnishing false information ” ° ( 39 Ill. 2d 617, 619 .) Recently the ordinary citizen rule was applied to a search warrant in a murder case wherein the court noted that the reliability of a citizen informant may be established by corroborating factors developed as the result of subsequent police investigation.

1977People v. Hammers (1976), 35 Ill. App. 3d 498 , 351 N.E.2d 471 .

1941It was said in the Spain case: “When a proper case arises, the constitutional provisions quoted should be applied in a broad and liberal spirit in order to secure to the citizen that immunity from every species of self-accusation implied in the brief but comprehensive language in which they are expressed.” In an opinion rendered by the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, (In re Opinion of Justices, 300 Mass. 620 , 15 N.E. (2d) 662), the Justices were considering the validity of a proposed statute, providing that if a defendant failed to testify and the court was satisfied

1941It was said in the Spain case: “When a proper case arises, the constitutional provisions quoted should be applied in a broad and liberal spirit in order to secure to the citizen that immunity from every species of self-accusation implied in the brief but comprehensive language in which they are expressed.” In an opinion rendered by the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, (In re Opinion of Justices, 300 Mass. 620 , 15 N.E. (2d) 662), the Justices were considering the validity of a proposed statute, providing that if a defendant failed to testify and the court was satisfied

1923(Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 , 12 Sup. Ct. 195; Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71 , 41 Sup. Ct. 26; People v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219 , 38 N. E. 303 ; People v. Reardon, 197 N. Y. 236 , 90 N. E. 829 ; Ex parte Cohen, 104 Cal. 524 , 38 Pac. 364 ; In re Beer, 17 N. D. 184 , 115 N. W. 672 .) The security which they afford to all citizens against the zeal of the public prosecutor or public clamor for the punishment of crime should not be impaired by any narrow or technical views in their application to such a state of facts as appears from the record before us.

1923(Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 , 12 Sup. Ct. 195; Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71 , 41 Sup. Ct. 26; People v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219 , 38 N. E. 303 ; People v. Reardon, 197 N. Y. 236 , 90 N. E. 829 ; Ex parte Cohen, 104 Cal. 524 , 38 Pac. 364 ; In re Beer, 17 N. D. 184 , 115 N. W. 672 .) The security which they afford to all citizens against the zeal of the public prosecutor or public clamor for the punishment of crime should not be impaired by any narrow or technical views in their application to such a state of facts as appears from the record before us.

1923(Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 , 12 Sup. Ct. 195; Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71 , 41 Sup. Ct. 26; People v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219 , 38 N. E. 303 ; People v. Reardon, 197 N. Y. 236 , 90 N. E. 829 ; Ex parte Cohen, 104 Cal. 524 , 38 Pac. 364 ; In re Beer, 17 N. D. 184 , 115 N. W. 672 .) The security which they afford to all citizens against the zeal of the public prosecutor or public clamor for the punishment of crime should not be impaired by any narrow or technical views in their application to such a state of facts as appears from the record before us.

1923(Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 , 12 Sup. Ct. 195; Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71 , 41 Sup. Ct. 26; People v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219 , 38 N. E. 303 ; People v. Reardon, 197 N. Y. 236 , 90 N. E. 829 ; Ex parte Cohen, 104 Cal. 524 , 38 Pac. 364 ; In re Beer, 17 N. D. 184 , 115 N. W. 672 .) The security which they afford to all citizens against the zeal of the public prosecutor or public clamor for the punishment of crime should not be impaired by any narrow or technical views in their application to such a state of facts as appears from the record before us.

1923(Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 , 12 Sup. Ct. 195; Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71 , 41 Sup. Ct. 26; People v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219 , 38 N. E. 303 ; People v. Reardon, 197 N. Y. 236 , 90 N. E. 829 ; Ex parte Cohen, 104 Cal. 524 , 38 Pac. 364 ; In re Beer, 17 N. D. 184 , 115 N. W. 672 .) The security which they afford to all citizens against the zeal of the public prosecutor or public clamor for the punishment of crime should not be impaired by any narrow or technical views in their application to such a state of facts as appears from the record before us.

1923(Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 , 12 Sup. Ct. 195; Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71 , 41 Sup. Ct. 26; People v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219 , 38 N. E. 303 ; People v. Reardon, 197 N. Y. 236 , 90 N. E. 829 ; Ex parte Cohen, 104 Cal. 524 , 38 Pac. 364 ; In re Beer, 17 N. D. 184 , 115 N. W. 672 .) The security which they afford to all citizens against the zeal of the public prosecutor or public clamor for the punishment of crime should not be impaired by any narrow or technical views in their application to such a state of facts as appears from the record before us.

1923(Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 , 12 Sup. Ct. 195; Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71 , 41 Sup. Ct. 26; People v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219 , 38 N. E. 303 ; People v. Reardon, 197 N. Y. 236 , 90 N. E. 829 ; Ex parte Cohen, 104 Cal. 524 , 38 Pac. 364 ; In re Beer, 17 N. D. 184 , 115 N. W. 672 .) The security which they afford to all citizens against the zeal of the public prosecutor or public clamor for the punishment of crime should not be impaired by any narrow or technical views in their application to such a state of facts as appears from the record before us.

1923(Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 , 12 Sup. Ct. 195; Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71 , 41 Sup. Ct. 26; People v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219 , 38 N. E. 303 ; People v. Reardon, 197 N. Y. 236 , 90 N. E. 829 ; Ex parte Cohen, 104 Cal. 524 , 38 Pac. 364 ; In re Beer, 17 N. D. 184 , 115 N. W. 672 .) The security which they afford to all citizens against the zeal of the public prosecutor or public clamor for the punishment of crime should not be impaired by any narrow or technical views in their application to such a state of facts as appears from the record before us.

1901(Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678 .) In Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578 , it was said: “The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right.

1901(Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678 .) In Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578 , it was said: “The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right.

1895It was said by Justice Bradley in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 , that “laws which provide for the search and seizure of articles and things which it is unlawful for a person to have in his possession for the purpose of. issue or disposition, such as counterfeit coin, lottery tickets, implements of gambling, etc., are not within the category of unreasonable searches and seizures.