habeas corpus hearing in Illinois

2014The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that, because the first petition “did not challenge the lawfulness of his conviction,” which is the basis of a habeas corpus challenge, it “did not count under the second or successive petition rule of § 2244.” Vasquez, 318 F.3d at 392 .

1991It noted that the scope of a habeas corpus hearing is normally limited to the four issues we have listed, but stated that “because there was an inordinate delay not attributable to the petitioner, closer scrutiny is required.” ( 46 Ill. 2d at 575 .) The court then explained: “In this case there was an unexplained 13-year delay between the first extradition proceeding in 1955 and the last effort in 1968.

1989In White v. DeRobertis, the district court there found that claims that “defense attorney’s failure to file certain motions and call particular witnesses, *** amount to nothing more than strategic decisions which are exempted from review, and are insufficient to warrant a determination of incompetence.” (White, 566 F. Supp. at 874 .) The court further commented that the “petitioner’s claim that he was not given [an] opportunity to testify to the truth at trial is not supported by the record whatsoever.” White, 566 F. Supp. at 874 .

1989In White v. DeRobertis, the district court there found that claims that “defense attorney’s failure to file certain motions and call particular witnesses, *** amount to nothing more than strategic decisions which are exempted from review, and are insufficient to warrant a determination of incompetence.” (White, 566 F. Supp. at 874 .) The court further commented that the “petitioner’s claim that he was not given [an] opportunity to testify to the truth at trial is not supported by the record whatsoever.” White, 566 F. Supp. at 874 .

1952In People v. Jennings, 411 Ill. 21 , which was decided subsequent to the hearing here involved, this court construed the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Jennings v. Illinois, 342 U.S. 104 , 96 L. ed. 105, 72 S. Ct. 123 , as holding that an inquiry into a petition meeting the requirements of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act may not be foreclosed by a mechanical application of the doctrine of res judicata.

1952In People v. Jennings, 411 Ill. 21 , which was decided subsequent to the hearing here involved, this court construed the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Jennings v. Illinois, 342 U.S. 104 , 96 L. ed. 105, 72 S. Ct. 123 , as holding that an inquiry into a petition meeting the requirements of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act may not be foreclosed by a mechanical application of the doctrine of res judicata.

1952In People v. Jennings, 411 Ill. 21 , which was decided subsequent to the hearing here involved, this court construed the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Jennings v. Illinois, 342 U.S. 104 , 96 L. ed. 105, 72 S. Ct. 123 , as holding that an inquiry into a petition meeting the requirements of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act may not be foreclosed by a mechanical application of the doctrine of res judicata.

1949In People v. Gard, 259 Ill. 238 , a police officer present at a habeas corpus hearing wrongfully informed the trial judge that there were no further charges against the relator other than the one then under consideration.

1939(People v. Jeremiah, supra.) The purpose of the admission is to establish upon what the Governor of Illinois found a prima facie case against relator.

1933The answer filed by the respondent in this cause, to which a demurrer has been interposed, admits the filing of the petition for habeas corpus by Michaels on October 27, 1932, in the circuit court of Sangamon county, and states that reference to the opinion of this court was made by counsel and that the opinion of this court was examined and considered in passing upon the petition for habeas corpus, and that the respondent concluded that the circuit court had jurisdiction and power to pass upon matters not brought to the attention of this court by the assignment of errors in People v. Michaels

1933He also says that Michaels, according to the respondent’s recollection of what then transpired, was permitted to orally traverse the return to the writ; that witnesses were sworn and that facts were brought out in their testimony which showed a “want of jurisdiction of the subject matter by the circuit court of Randolph county.” In addition to this, the respondent insists that Michaels was held under an imperfect and insufficient mittimus by the warden of the Southern Illinois Penitentiary, and that by reason of these matters and things the respondent had before him matters for consideration w