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.
8 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2021 1 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. Lashgreen2 sentences2016In Wilson, this court reasoned that “[t]o inform a jury that to believe the defense witnesses the jury must find that each of the State’s witnesses was lying is a misstatement of law.” Id. at 796 . ¶ 92 Here, in contrast, the State’s comments about a conspiracy were a direct response to the defense’s attack on the credibility of the State witnesses and therefore “was not a misstatement of the law or an attempt to distort the burden of proof.” See People v. Lash, 252 Ill. 2016In Wilson, this court reasoned that “[t]o inform a jury that to believe the defense witnesses the jury must find that each of the State’s witnesses was lying is a misstatement of law.” Id. at 796 . 38 No. 13-1474 ¶ 92 Here, in contrast, the State’s comments about a conspiracy were a direct response to the defense’s attack on the credibility of the State witnesses and therefore “was not a misstatement of the law or an attempt to distort the burden of proof.” See People v. Lash, 252 Ill. | 4 | 4 |
People v. Templegreen2 sentences2021Rather, the argument that the State’s witnesses had no motive to lie and were not part of a conspiracy against Ortega was “a direct response to the defense’s attack on the credibility of the State[’s] witnesses and therefore ‘was not a misstatement - 29 - No. 1-17-2007 of the law or an attempt to distort the burden of proof.’” Temple, 2014 IL App (1st) 111653, ¶ 74 (quoting Banks, 237 Ill. 2d at 185 ). ¶ 57 Ortega also contends that the State improperly shifted the burden of proof in its rebuttal argument, when the prosecutor stated: “I guess on behalf of the citizens of Cook County, I owe an 2016See People v. Temple, 2014 IL App (1st) 111653, ¶ 74 (“the State’s comments about a conspiracy were a direct response to the defense’s attack on the credibility of the state witnesses and therefore was not a misstatement of the law or an attempt to distort the burden of proof” (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 3 | 3 |
Kennedy v. Kennedygreen1 sentence2020Since the State may respond to comments that clearly invite a response (Hall, 194 Ill. at 346), defendant’s claim of error on this point is unavailing. ¶ 54 Finally, defendant’s argument that the cumulative impact of these purported errors warrants a new trial is unavailing because we have rejected each claimed error. | 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. Wilson
green
2 sentences2016In Wilson, this court reasoned that “[t]o inform a jury that to believe the defense witnesses the jury must find that each of the State’s witnesses was lying is a misstatement of law.” Id. at 796 . ¶ 92 Here, in contrast, the State’s comments about a conspiracy were a direct response to the defense’s attack on the credibility of the State witnesses and therefore “was not a misstatement of the law or an attempt to distort the burden of proof.” See People v. Lash, 252 Ill. 2016In Wilson, this court reasoned that “[t]o inform a jury that to believe the defense witnesses the jury must find that each of the State’s witnesses was lying is a misstatement of law.” Id. at 796 . 38 No. 13-1474 ¶ 92 Here, in contrast, the State’s comments about a conspiracy were a direct response to the defense’s attack on the credibility of the State witnesses and therefore “was not a misstatement of the law or an attempt to distort the burden of proof.” See People v. Lash, 252 Ill. | 4 | 2014–2016 |
People v. Banks
green
2 sentences2021Rather, the argument that the State’s witnesses had no motive to lie and were not part of a conspiracy against Ortega was “a direct response to the defense’s attack on the credibility of the State[’s] witnesses and therefore ‘was not a misstatement - 29 - No. 1-17-2007 of the law or an attempt to distort the burden of proof.’” Temple, 2014 IL App (1st) 111653, ¶ 74 (quoting Banks, 237 Ill. 2d at 185 ). ¶ 57 Ortega also contends that the State improperly shifted the burden of proof in its rebuttal argument, when the prosecutor stated: “I guess on behalf of the citizens of Cook County, I owe an 2014The court reasoned that "[t]o inform a jury that to believe the defense witnesses the jury must find that each of the State's witnesses was lying is a misstatement of law." Id. at 796 . ¶ 74 Here, in contrast, the State's comments about a conspiracy were a direct response to the defense's attack on the credibility of the State witnesses and therefore "was not a misstatement of the law or an attempt to distort the burden of proof." Banks, 237 Ill. 2d at 185 ; see also People v. Lash, 252 Ill. | 3 | 2014–2021 |
People v. Coleman
green
2 sentences2008Coleman, 158 Ill. 2d at 347 . 2008Coleman, 158 Ill. 2d at 347 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
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.