8 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2018 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. Failorgreen2 sentences2014See People v. Failor, 271 Ill. 2014See People v. Failor, 271 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Turman
green
2 sentences2018On appeal, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in its explanation of reasonable doubt to the jury, explaining that, “[b]y instructing the jurors that they should collectively determine what reasonable doubt was, the [trial] court allowed the jury to use a standard that in all likelihood was below the threshold of a reasonable doubt standard.” Turman, 2011 IL App (1st) 091019, ¶ 25 . 2017On appeal, the appellate *510 court found that the trial court erred in its explanation of reasonable doubt to the jury, explaining that, "[b]y instructing the jurors that they should collectively determine what reasonable doubt was, the [trial] court allowed the jury to use a standard that in all likelihood was below the threshold of a reasonable doubt standard." Turman , 2011 IL App (1st) 091019 , ¶ 25, 352 Ill.Dec. 762 , 954 N.E.2d 845 . | 3 | 2014–2018 |
People v. Franklin
green
2 sentences2015Franklin, 2012 IL App (3d) 100618 . 2015Franklin, 2012 IL App (3d) 100618 . | 3 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Turman
neutral
2 sentences2017On appeal, the appellate *510 court found that the trial court erred in its explanation of reasonable doubt to the jury, explaining that, "[b]y instructing the jurors that they should collectively determine what reasonable doubt was, the [trial] court allowed the jury to use a standard that in all likelihood was below the threshold of a reasonable doubt standard." Turman , 2011 IL App (1st) 091019 , ¶ 25, 352 Ill.Dec. 762 , 954 N.E.2d 845 . 2017On appeal, the appellate *510 court found that the trial court erred in its explanation of reasonable doubt to the jury, explaining that, "[b]y instructing the jurors that they should collectively determine what reasonable doubt was, the [trial] court allowed the jury to use a standard that in all likelihood was below the threshold of a reasonable doubt standard." Turman , 2011 IL App (1st) 091019 , ¶ 25, 352 Ill.Dec. 762 , 954 N.E.2d 845 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Downs
green
1 sentence2014Regarding Turman, the State focuses on the passage in which the appellate court expressed concern that the trial court “allowed the jury to use a standard that in all likelihood was below the threshold of a reasonable doubt standard.” Turman, 2011 IL App 2 Defendant wryly notes that “the State’s argument may not be logically coherent.” To say the least. - 16 - 2014 IL App (2d) 121156 (1st) 091019, ¶ 25. 3 The State argues that here the trial court’s response did not allow the jury to use a standard that fell below the reasonable-doubt standard, because the trial court prefaced the response wit | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2014Id. ¶ 27. ¶ 31 Analyzing the trial court’s response to the jury’s question, the Turman court held that, although the first part of the response (that the term was not defined under Illinois law) was correct, the second part was error: “By instructing the jurors that they should collectively determine what reasonable doubt was, the court allowed the jury to use a standard that in all likelihood was below the threshold of a reasonable doubt standard. *** The effort by the trial court in this case - 11 - 2014 IL App (2d) 121203 can be construed as an attempt to define that which the Illinois Supr | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.