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.
10 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2024 1 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. Allengreen2 sentences2010People v. Allen, 222 Ill. 2d 340, 351 (2006). 2010Allen, 222 Ill. 2d at 351 . | 2 | 2 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2006Rather, the shackling issue was reviewed under the plain error doctrine because we found the evidence closely balanced.” Brown, 356 Ill. 2006Rather, the shackling issue *356 was reviewed under the plain error doctrine because we found the evidence closely balanced." Brown, 356 Ill.App.3d at 1091 , 293 Ill.Dec. 381 , 828 N.E.2d 351 (Schmidt, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Bellgreen1 sentence2024See People v. Bell, 2020 IL App (4th) 170804, ¶ 127 , 145 N.E.3d 740 (noting the Allen court disagreed with the proposition that restraining a defendant without a Boose hearing automatically constituted plain error and held, instead, “the issue of second-prong plain error must be considered on a case-by-case basis”). ¶ 28 4. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Naylorgreen1 sentence2016See People v. Naylor, 229 Ill. 2d 584, 607-08 (2008) (evidence was found to be closely balanced when there were two opposing versions of events and no extrinsic evidence to corroborate or contradict either version). ¶ 32 Since we find that the shackling of the defendant without a Boose hearing was plain error, the question is one of remedy. | 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. Thompson
green
2 sentences2006Without objecting and preserving the issue for review, the defendant must show the evidence was closely balanced or “the error was so serious it affected the fairness of his trial and challenged the judicial process’s integrity.” People v. Thompson, 359 Ill. 2006Without objecting and preserving the issue for review, the defendant must show the evidence was closely balanced or "the - 13 - error was so serious it affected the fairness of his trial and challenged the judicial process's integrity." People v. Thomp- son, 359 Ill. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Doss
green
2 sentences2005App. 3d 418 , 807 N.E.2d 697 (2004), for the proposition that the shackling of a defendant without a Boose hearing always constitutes plain error which is not subject to waiver. 2005App. 3d 418 , 807 N.E.2d 697 (2004), for the proposition that the shackling of a defendant without a Boose hearing always constitutes plain error which is not subject to waiver. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
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.