defendant to establish violation in Illinois

2021For a defendant to establish a claim under Brady, he or she must show the following: “(1) the undisclosed evidence is favorable to the accused because it is either exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the State either wilfully or inadvertently; and (3) the accused was prejudiced because the evidence is material to guilt or punishment.” People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56, 73-74 , 890 N.E.2d 500, 510 (2008). ¶ 24 The State contends, assuming the State failed to disclose impeachment evidence regarding Hubbell, defendant cannot show he was prejudiced by the nondisclosure bec

2021For a defendant to establish a claim under Brady, he or she must show the following: “(1) the undisclosed evidence is favorable to the accused because it is either exculpatory or impeaching; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the State either wilfully or inadvertently; and (3) the accused was prejudiced because the evidence is material to guilt or punishment.” People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56, 73-74 , 890 N.E.2d 500, 510 (2008). ¶ 24 The State contends, assuming the State failed to disclose impeachment evidence regarding Hubbell, defendant cannot show he was prejudiced by the nondisclosure bec

2020See id. ¶ 42 The defendant directs our attention to People v. Johnson, 2019 IL App (1st) 162517 , where a jury waiver form appeared in the record but the trial court did not explain to the defendant that he had the right to a jury trial or what that right entailed, and instead only asked defense counsel whether the case would proceed by a bench or jury trial.

2020See id. ¶ 42 The defendant directs our attention to People v. Johnson, 2019 IL App (1st) 162517 , where a jury waiver form appeared in the record but the trial court did not explain to the defendant that he had the right to a jury trial or what that right entailed, and instead only asked defense counsel whether the case would proceed by a bench or jury trial.

2012People v. Hernandez, 231 Ill. 2d 134, 142 (2008); Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 173-74 (2002). ¶ 30 PRESIDING JUSTICE SCHMIDT, dissenting: ¶ 31 The United States Supreme Court has clearly established what must be shown by a defendant to establish a violation of the sixth amendment as relates to conflicts of interests: “In order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance” (Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348 (1980)); “prejudice will be presumed

2012People v. Hernandez, 231 Ill. 2d 134, 142 (2008); Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 173-74 (2002). ¶ 30 PRESIDING JUSTICE SCHMIDT, dissenting: ¶ 31 The United States Supreme Court has clearly established what must be shown by a defendant to establish a violation of the sixth amendment as relates to conflicts of interests: “In order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance” (Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348 (1980)); “prejudice will be presumed

2012People v. Hernandez, 231 Ill. 2d 134, 142 (2008); Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 173-74 (2002). ¶ 30 PRESIDING JUSTICE SCHMIDT, dissenting: ¶ 31 The United States Supreme Court has clearly established what must be shown by a defendant to establish a violation of the sixth amendment as relates to conflicts of interests: “In order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance” (Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348 (1980)); “prejudice will be presumed

2012People v. Hernandez, 231 Ill. 2d 134, 142 (2008); Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 173-74 (2002). ¶ 30 PRESIDING JUSTICE SCHMIDT, dissenting: ¶ 31 The United States Supreme Court has clearly established what must be shown by a defendant to establish a violation of the sixth amendment as relates to conflicts of interests: “In order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance” (Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348 (1980)); “prejudice will be presumed

1987To establish a prima facie case, a defendant must show that "`(1) the group alleged to be excluded is a cognizable group in the community, and (2) there is substantial likelihood that the challenges leading to this exclusion have been made on the basis of the individual venireperson's group affiliation rather than because of any indication of a possible inability to decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented.'" Roman, 822 F.2d at 223, 225 , quoting McCray v. Abrams (2d Cir.1984), 750 F.2d 1113, 1131-32 .

1987To establish a prima facie case, a defendant must show that “ ‘(1) the group alleged to be excluded is a cognizable group in the community, and (2) there is substantial likelihood that the challenges leading to this exclusion have been made on the basis of the individual venireperson’s group affiliation rather than because of any indication of a possible inability to decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented.’ ” Roman, 822 F.2d at 223, 225, quoting McCray v. Abrams (2d Cir. 1984), 750 F.2d 1113, 1131-32 .