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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gagnon v. Scarpellired2 sentences1995Ed. 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 | 4 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2005In 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 | 2 | 2005–2005 |
People v. DeWitt
green
2 sentences1995Ed. 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. | 2 | 1991–1995 |
People v. Hoyt
green
1 sentence1992People v. Hoyt (1984), 129 Ill. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Beard
green
2 sentences1992(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. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Williams v. Florida
green
1 sentence1979Ed. 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. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.