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 2020–2026 7 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. Marshallgreen2 sentences2026Thus, 14 postconviction counsel was free to present and support the defendant’s claim at the hearing in a manner that included both the foundation and discovery issues regarding the DNA evidence at trial so that the circuit court could make fact-finding and credibility determinations. ¶ 39 “An attorney at the evidentiary hearing stage must argue the merits of the postconviction petitioner’s claims as presented in the petition following review by counsel at the second stage.” People v. Marshall, 375 Ill. App. 3d 670, 683 (2007). 2023(In a related argument the State argues unsuccessfully the trial court actually did conduct the required hearing.) We must agree with the State based on this court’s precedent. ¶ 16 We hold that at the third stage the trial court was required “to conduct a hearing, during which the juror could be cross-examined, to determine what she knew and how it affected her.” Hanks III, 2022 IL App (1st) 171899-U , ¶ 26. “ ‘An attorney at the evidentiary hearing stage must argue the merits of the postconviction petitioner’s claims as presented in the petition following review by counsel at the second stag | 3 | 7 |
People v. Beamangreen2 sentences2023“Following an evidentiary hearing where fact-finding and credibility determinations are involved, the trial court’s decision will not be reversed unless it is manifestly erroneous.” People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56, 72 (2008). ¶ 15 In this case, at the second stage, defendant was “charged only with making a substantial showing he did come forward with the required specific, detailed, nonconjectural evidence.” Hanks III, 2022 IL App (1st) 171899-U , ¶ 26. 2023“Following an evidentiary hearing where fact-finding and credibility determinations are involved, the trial court’s decision will not be reversed unless it is manifestly erroneous.” People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56, 72 (2008). ¶ 15 In this case, at the second stage, defendant was “charged only with making a substantial showing he did come forward with the required specific, detailed, nonconjectural evidence.” Hanks III, 2022 IL App (1st) 171899-U , ¶ 26. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Watsongreen2 sentences2023(In a related argument the State argues unsuccessfully the trial court actually did conduct the required hearing.) We must agree with the State based on this court’s precedent. ¶ 16 We hold that at the third stage the trial court was required “to conduct a hearing, during which the juror could be cross-examined, to determine what she knew and how it affected her.” Hanks III, 2022 IL App (1st) 171899-U , ¶ 26. “ ‘An attorney at the evidentiary hearing stage must argue the merits of the postconviction petitioner’s claims as presented in the petition following review by counsel at the second stag 2023“An attorney at the evidentiary hearing stage must argue the merits of the postconviction petitioner’s claims as presented in the petition following review by counsel at the second stage.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Watson, 2022 IL App (5th) 190427, ¶ 34 . | 2 | 2 |
People v. Gerowgreen1 sentence2023At the third stage, the trial court “may receive evidentiary proof via affidavits, depositions, testimony, or other evidence, and may order the petitioner brought before the court.” People v. Gerow, 388 Ill. App. 3d 524, 527 (2009). | 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. Fiedler
green
2 sentences2022An attorney at the evidentiary hearing stage must argue the merits of the postconviction petitioner’s claims as presented in the petition following review by counsel at the second stage.” Id. ¶ 23 The instant petitioner disputes the relevance of Marshall. 2022An attorney at the evidentiary hearing stage must argue the merits of the postconviction petitioner’s claims as presented in the petition following review by counsel at the second stage.” Id. ¶ 23 The instant petitioner disputes the relevance of Marshall. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
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.