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.
9 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2020 0 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. Primgreen2 sentences2019Therefore, I would decline. 1 The “Prim instruction” refers to a supplemental jury instruction set out in People v. Prim, 53 Ill. 2d 62, 75-76 (1972). -7- MR. 2007Prim Instruction Defendant next contends that he was denied a fair trial because the circuit court never responded to any of the jury’s notes indicating deadlock with the supplemental jury instruction recommended by our supreme court in People v. Prim, 53 Ill. 2d 62 (1972). 5 The State first counters that we should not review the issue because defendant waived it through failing to request the instruction during the conferences between court and counsel that occurred following each time the jury contacted the court, and because of defendant’s failure to include the claim in his posttrial motio | 3 | 5 |
Renico v. Lettgreen2 sentences2020See Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599, 609 (2012) (“We have never required a trial court, before declaring a mistrial because of a hung jury, to consider any particular means of breaking the impasse ***.”); Lett, 559 U.S. at 775 (a trial judge is not constitutionally obligated, before declaring a mistrial based on jury deadlock, to require the jury to deliberate for a minimum period of time or to issue a supplemental jury instruction); People v. Cowan, 105 Ill. 2d 324, 328 (1985) (no obligation to give the Prim instruction). -9- ¶ 46 It is within the trial court’s discretion whether to give t 2019See Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599, 609 (2012) (“We have never required a trial court, before declaring a mistrial because of a hung jury, to consider any particular means of breaking the impasse ***.”); Lett, 559 U.S. at 775 (a trial judge is not constitutionally obligated, before declaring a mistrial based on jury deadlock, to require the jury to deliberate for a minimum period of time or to issue a supplemental jury instruction); People v. Cowan, 105 Ill. 2d 324, 328 (1985) (no obligation to give the Prim instruction). ¶ 46 It is within the trial court’s discretion whether to give that | 2 | 2 |
Blueford v. Arkansasgreen2 sentences2020See Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599, 609 (2012) (“We have never required a trial court, before declaring a mistrial because of a hung jury, to consider any particular means of breaking the impasse ***.”); Lett, 559 U.S. at 775 (a trial judge is not constitutionally obligated, before declaring a mistrial based on jury deadlock, to require the jury to deliberate for a minimum period of time or to issue a supplemental jury instruction); People v. Cowan, 105 Ill. 2d 324, 328 (1985) (no obligation to give the Prim instruction). -9- ¶ 46 It is within the trial court’s discretion whether to give t 2019See Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599, 609 (2012) (“We have never required a trial court, before declaring a mistrial because of a hung jury, to consider any particular means of breaking the impasse ***.”); Lett, 559 U.S. at 775 (a trial judge is not constitutionally obligated, before declaring a mistrial based on jury deadlock, to require the jury to deliberate for a minimum period of time or to issue a supplemental jury instruction); People v. Cowan, 105 Ill. 2d 324, 328 (1985) (no obligation to give the Prim instruction). ¶ 46 It is within the trial court’s discretion whether to give that | 2 | 2 |
People v. Cowangreen2 sentences2020See Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599, 609 (2012) (“We have never required a trial court, before declaring a mistrial because of a hung jury, to consider any particular means of breaking the impasse ***.”); Lett, 559 U.S. at 775 (a trial judge is not constitutionally obligated, before declaring a mistrial based on jury deadlock, to require the jury to deliberate for a minimum period of time or to issue a supplemental jury instruction); People v. Cowan, 105 Ill. 2d 324, 328 (1985) (no obligation to give the Prim instruction). -9- ¶ 46 It is within the trial court’s discretion whether to give t 2019See Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599, 609 (2012) (“We have never required a trial court, before declaring a mistrial because of a hung jury, to consider any particular means of breaking the impasse ***.”); Lett, 559 U.S. at 775 (a trial judge is not constitutionally obligated, before declaring a mistrial based on jury deadlock, to require the jury to deliberate for a minimum period of time or to issue a supplemental jury instruction); People v. Cowan, 105 Ill. 2d 324, 328 (1985) (no obligation to give the Prim instruction). ¶ 46 It is within the trial court’s discretion whether to give that | 2 | 2 |
People v. Enochgreen1 sentence2019People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 190 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Watkinsgreen2 sentences2009Watkins, 293 Ill. 2009App. 3d 496, 507 , 688 N.E.2d 798, 805-06 (1997), the court held that “it may be improper for a court to issue supplemental instructions urging deadlocked jurors to reach a unanimous verdict after the court becomes aware that a majority of jurors favor conviction.” The reason is that a supplemental jury instruction may have a coercive effect upon the minority juror and might lead the minority juror to believe the judge agrees with the majority. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gregory Escobar v. Michael O'leary, Warden of Stateville Penitentiary, and Neil Hartigan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois
green
2 sentences2020Escobar, 943 F.2d at 718 . 2019Escobar, 943 F.2d at 718 . | 2 | 2019–2020 |
People v. Danielly
green
2 sentences1997People v. Prim, 53 Ill. 2d 62, 72-73 , 289 N.E.2d 601, 607-08 (1972); People v. Danielly, 274 Ill. 1997People v. Prim , 53 Ill. 2d 62, 72-73 , 289 N.E.2d 601, 607-08 (1972); People v. Danielly , 274 Ill. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Kucala
green
1 sentence1995App. 3d 1029 , 288 N.E.2d 622 .) The record also indicates that the trial court’s supplemental jury instruction was prepared after consulting with counsel for both parties, neither of which objected to the content of the response. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.