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 2 courts 1975–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2021See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2020See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Glaspergreen2 sentences2019We agree. ¶ 56 Prosecutors have “wide latitude in making a closing argument and [are] permitted to comment on the evidence and any fair, reasonable inferences it yields.” People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 204 , 917 N.E.2d 401, 419 (2009). 2019We agree. ¶ 56 Prosecutors have “wide latitude in making a closing argument and [are] permitted to comment on the evidence and any fair, reasonable inferences it yields.” People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 204 , 917 N.E.2d 401, 419 (2009). | 1 | 2 |
People v. MacRigreen1 sentence2026Mr. Truman maintains that this comment implied that counsel acted outside of “acceptable behavior,” was unethical, and had a “bad character.” Mr. Truman asserts that he was prejudiced by the State’s comments such that he was deprived of a fair trial. ¶ 38 As discussed, the State is afforded wide latitude in closing argument and the State’s comments during closing argument “will result in reversible error only when they engender substantial prejudice against the defendant to the extent that it is impossible to determine whether the verdict of the jury was caused by the comments or the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kirchnergreen1 sentence2026Mr. Truman maintains that this comment implied that counsel acted outside of “acceptable behavior,” was unethical, and had a “bad character.” Mr. Truman asserts that he was prejudiced by the State’s comments such that he was deprived of a fair trial. ¶ 38 As discussed, the State is afforded wide latitude in closing argument and the State’s comments during closing argument “will result in reversible error only when they engender substantial prejudice against the defendant to the extent that it is impossible to determine whether the verdict of the jury was caused by the comments or the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2024People v. Cherry, 2016 IL 118728, ¶ 30 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Zehrgreen2 sentences2021July. 1, 2012) because the court grouped all four Zehr principles together (see People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472, 477 , 469 N.E.2d 1062, 1064 (1984)) and (2) the State committed reversible error by defining reasonable doubt for the jury. 2021July. 1, 2012) because the court grouped all four Zehr principles together (see People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472, 477 , 469 N.E.2d 1062, 1064 (1984)) and (2) the State committed reversible error by defining reasonable doubt for the jury. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doyle v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1995In Doyle v. Ohio (1976), 426 U.S. 610 , 49 L. 1995In Doyle v. Ohio (1976), 426 U.S. 610 , 49 L. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Nichols
green
2 sentences1978People v. Nichols, 63 Ill. 2d 443 , 349 N.E.2d 40 ; People v. Wisniewski, 8 Ill. App. 3d 768 , 290 N.E.2d 414 . 1978People v. Nichols, 63 Ill. 2d 443 , 349 N.E.2d 40 ; People v. Wisniewski, 8 Ill. App. 3d 768 , 290 N.E.2d 414 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Wisniewski
green
2 sentences1978People v. Nichols, 63 Ill. 2d 443 , 349 N.E.2d 40 ; People v. Wisniewski, 8 Ill. App. 3d 768 , 290 N.E.2d 414 . 1978People v. Nichols, 63 Ill. 2d 443 , 349 N.E.2d 40 ; People v. Wisniewski, 8 Ill. App. 3d 768 , 290 N.E.2d 414 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Rogers
green
1 sentence1977App. 3d 499 , 356 N.E.2d 413 , to support his position that the State committed reversible error by its response to defense counsel’s comments concerning witnesses to defendant’s sale of the victim’s coat, we find that decision is distinguishable. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Freedman
green
2 sentences1975While the prosecutor is not permitted to appeal to the prejudices of the jury or to accuse defense counsel of seeking to free his client by trickery (People v. Freedman, 4 Ill.2d 414 , 123 N.E.2d 317 ), he may comment on and draw inferences from the evidence. 1975While the prosecutor is not permitted to appeal to the prejudices of the jury or to accuse defense counsel of seeking to free his client by trickery (People v. Freedman, 4 Ill.2d 414 , 123 N.E.2d 317 ), he may comment on and draw inferences from the evidence. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.