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 1 courts 1992–2026 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. Bryantgreen2 sentences2022Generally, the decision of whether to file a motion to suppress is a matter of trial strategy and “therefore one in which the court will not indulge a hindsight analysis to determine whether the attorney's decision was reasonably adequate under the circumstances.” People v. Bryant, 128 Ill. 2d 448, 458 (1989). 1994The courts will not indulge a hindsight analysis to determine whether the attorney's decision was reasonably adequate under the circumstances. ( People v. Bryant (1989), 128 Ill.2d 448, 458 , 132 Ill.Dec. 415 , 539 N.E.2d 1221 .) To prevail on a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for advancing a particular theory or for failing to submit particular instructions to the jury, the defendant must show that the instructions would have been given and that the trial outcome would have been different. | 2 | 7 |
Jimenez v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulationgreen1 sentence2026See Jimenez, 2020 IL App (1st) 192248, ¶ 27 (a finding is not against the manifest weight of the evidence if there is “any evidence in the record” to support it). ¶ 35 B. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Morrisgreen1 sentence2014Generally, the decision of whether to file a motion to suppress is a matter of trial strategy and “therefore one in which the court will not indulge a hindsight analysis to determine whether the attorney’s decision was reasonably adequate under the circumstances.” People v. Morris, 229 Ill. | 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. Henderson
green
1 sentence2021Henderson, 2013 IL 114040, ¶ 11 . ¶ 126 Under the first prong of Strickland, representation will not be deemed deficient based on a hindsight analysis. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. English
green
1 sentence2021People v. Oliver, 2013 IL App (1st) 120793, ¶ 24 ; People v. English, 2013 IL 112890, ¶¶ 33-35 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.