8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2023 3 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. Coxgreen2 sentences2023“These ‘minimum requirements’ include the following: written notice of the claimed probation violation; disclosure to the probationer of the evidence against him; the opportunity to - 12 - Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009, 1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.) be heard in person and present evidence; and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.” Id. (citing People v. Cox, 197 Ill. 2022People v. Cox, 197 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
Gagnon v. Scarpellired2 sentences2001Ed. 2d 656, 664 , 93 S. Ct. 1756, 1761-62 (1973), the United States Supreme Court outlined the minimum requirements of due process in a probation revocation hearing: (1) written notice of the claimed probation violation; (2) disclosure of the evidence against the defendant; (3) the opportunity to be heard in person and present testimonial and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; (5) a neutral arbiter; and (6) a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reason for revoking probation. 2001Ed. 2d 656, 664 , 93 S. Ct. 1756, 1761-62 (1973), the United States Supreme Court outlined the minimum requirements of due process in a probation revocation hearing: (1) written notice of the claimed probation violation; (2) disclosure of the evidence against the defendant; (3) the opportunity to be heard in person and present testimonial and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; (5) a neutral arbiter; and (6) a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reason for revoking probation. | 2 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lyon v. Department of Children & Family Services
green
1 sentence2023“These ‘minimum requirements’ include the following: written notice of the claimed probation violation; disclosure to the probationer of the evidence against him; the opportunity to - 12 - Nos. 1-21-1006, 1-21-1007, 1-21-1008, 1-21-1009, 1-21-1010, 1-21-1011, 1-21-1012, 1-21-1013 (cons.) be heard in person and present evidence; and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.” Id. (citing People v. Cox, 197 Ill. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Lindsey
green
2 sentences2022According to our supreme court: - 15 - “In so doing, the Court has observed that ‘revocation *** is not part of a criminal prosecution and thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply ***. *** Revocation deprives an individual, not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only of the conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special *** restrictions.’ [Citations.] Thus, under federal precedent a probationer is entitled to ‘minimum procedural safeguards required by due process’ at a probation revocation proceeding. [Cit 2022Our supreme court went on to note that under Illinois law, “[u]nlike federal law, the right to counsel and the right to confront and cross-examine are absolute.” Lindsey, 199 Ill. 2d at 474 . ¶ 43 However, the fact section 5-6-4(c) of the Corrections Code (730 ILCS 5/5-6-4(c) (West 2020)) gives defendant a nonconditional right to confront and cross-examine during a revocation proceeding does not mean Youngblood’s bad faith test is inapplicable to the situation here. | 1 | 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.
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.