neutral and detached hearing (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

neutral and detached hearing in Illinois

8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2005 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Gagnon v. Scarpellired
scotus · 1973 · cited in 5 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1979–1998
2 sentences

1995Ed. 2d 656 , 93 S. Ct. 1756 .) This court has noted that under Gagnon such rights include the right: "to written notice of the alleged violation, to disclosure of the evidence against him, to be heard in person and to present testimonial and documentary evidence, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be judged by a neutral and detached hearing body, to receive a written statement by the fact finders stating the evidence relied on and the reason for revocation, and, in some instances, to receive assistance of counsel.” (People v. DeWitt (1979), 78 Ill. 2d 82, 85 .) These due proce

1995Ed. 2d 656 , 93 S. Ct. 1756 .) This court has noted that under Gagnon such rights include the right: "to written notice of the alleged violation, to disclosure of the evidence against him, to be heard in person and to present testimonial and documentary evidence, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be judged by a neutral and detached hearing body, to receive a written statement by the fact finders stating the evidence relied on and the reason for revocation, and, in some instances, to receive assistance of counsel.” (People v. DeWitt (1979), 78 Ill. 2d 82, 85 .) These due proce

45

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Morrissey v. Brewer green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

2005In terms of the revocation-hearing stage, the Morrissey Court held that due process entitles the parolee to the following: (1) written notice of the alleged parole violations; (2) disclosure of the evidence against him; (3) the opportunity to be heard in person and present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, unless the hearing body finds good cause for not allowing such confrontation; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body, such as a traditional parole board; and (6) “a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and

2005In terms of the revocation-hearing stage, the Morrissey Court held that due process entitles the parolee to the following: (1) written notice of the alleged parole violations; (2) disclosure of the evidence against him; (3) the opportunity to be heard in person and present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, unless the hearing body finds good cause for not allowing such confrontation; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body, such as a traditional parole board; and (6) “a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and

22005–2005
People v. DeWitt green
ill · 1979
2 sentences

1995Ed. 2d 656 , 93 S. Ct. 1756 .) This court has noted that under Gagnon such rights include the right: "to written notice of the alleged violation, to disclosure of the evidence against him, to be heard in person and to present testimonial and documentary evidence, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be judged by a neutral and detached hearing body, to receive a written statement by the fact finders stating the evidence relied on and the reason for revocation, and, in some instances, to receive assistance of counsel.” (People v. DeWitt (1979), 78 Ill. 2d 82, 85 .) These due proce

1991In DeWitt, the court held that due process entitles a probationer “to written notice of the alleged violation, to disclosure of the evidence against him, to be heard in person and to present testimonial and documentary evidence, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be judged by a neutral and detached hearing body, to receive a written statement by the fact finders stating the evidence relied on and the reason for the revocation, and, in some instances, to receive assistance of counsel.” DeWitt, 78 Ill. 2d at 85 , citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. at 782, 786, 788 , 36 L.

21991–1995
People v. Hoyt green
illappct · 1984
1 sentence

1992People v. Hoyt (1984), 129 Ill.

11992–1992
People v. Beard green
ill · 1974
2 sentences

1992(People v. Beard (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 220 , 319 N.E.2d 745 .) The defendant is entitled to written notice of the alleged violation, to disclosure of the evidence against him, to be heard in person and to present testimonial and documentary evidence, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be judged by a neutral and detached hearing body, and to receive a written statement by the fact finder stating the evidence relied on and the reason for revocation.

1992(People v. Beard (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 220 , 319 N.E.2d 745 .) The defendant is entitled to written notice of the alleged violation, to disclosure of the evidence against him, to be heard in person and to present testimonial and documentary evidence, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be judged by a neutral and detached hearing body, and to receive a written statement by the fact finder stating the evidence relied on and the reason for revocation.

11992–1992
Williams v. Florida green
scotus · 1970
1 sentence

1979Ed. 2d 446 , 90 S. Ct. 1893 .) In Gagnon the United States Supreme Court held that due process entitles a probationer to written notice of the alleged violation, to disclosure of the evidence against him, to be heard in person and to present testimonial and documentary evidence, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be judged by a neutral and detached hearing body, to receive a written statement by the fact finders stating the evidence relied on and the reason for revocation, and, in some instances, to receive assistance of counsel. ( 411 U.S. 778, 782, 786, 788 , 36 L.

11979–1979

Where else courts name it

TX 191 (1986–2026) IN 88 (1974–2026) OH 59 (1998–2026) TN 29 (2001–2022) WA 18 (1999–2024) PA 18 (1979–2026) MS 15 (2004–2021) WI 15 (1976–2014) KS 13 (1997–2024) CA 12 (1975–2025) AL 12 (1986–2018) IL 8 (1979–2005) CO 7 (1985–2026) WV 5 (1987–2019) FL 5 (1978–2006) NM 4 (1980–2019) NE 3 (1976–1986) KY 3 (2010–2021) CT 3 (1988–2006) NV 2 (1991–2015) AR 2 (2012–2016) MI 2 (1982–1984) IA 2 (2008–2008) MT 2 (1986–2025) MA 2 (2000–2003) NY 2 (1976–2003) DE 2 (2017–2019) SC 2 (2006–2007) MN 2 (2016–2017) UT 2 (1990–2005) ID 2 (1983–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check