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 2 courts 2007–2020 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. Olssongreen1 sentence2015We held that, in the absence of a request for a fitness hearing, the trial court did not have “an independent duty, as a matter of due process, to review the defendant’s fitness.” Olsson, 2012 IL App (2d) -9- 2015 IL App (2d) 140955 110856, ¶ 22 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2008JUSTICE TULLY delivered the opinion of the court: On October 3, 2005, defendant filed a second postconviction petition in which he alleged (1) that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain records from the psychiatric unit of the Cook County jail, which would have supported an insanity defense and a request for a fitness hearing; (2) that, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 10 L. 2008JUSTICE TULLY delivered the opinion of the court: On October 3, 2005, defendant filed a second postconviction petition in which he alleged (1) that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain records from the psychiatric unit of the Cook County jail, which would have supported an insanity defense and a request for a fitness hearing; (2) that, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 10 L. | 4 | 2007–2008 |
People v. Sophanavong
green
2 sentences2020This court in People v. Sophanavong, 2020 IL 124337, ¶ 20 , observed that the terms forfeiture and waiver have been used at times interchangeably, and often incorrectly, in criminal cases. 2020This court in People v. Sophanavong, 2020 IL 124337, ¶ 20 , observed that the terms forfeiture and waiver have been used at times interchangeably, and often incorrectly, in criminal cases. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Olsson
green
2 sentences2015Instead, during the section 104-25(g)(2) period, “due process is satisfied if the defendant is afforded periodic review of fitness upon request.” 1 Olsson, 2012 IL App (2d) 110856, ¶ 22 . 2015We held that, in the absence of a request for a fitness hearing, the trial court did not have “an independent duty, as a matter of due process, to review the defendant’s fitness.” Olsson, 2012 IL App (2d) 110856, ¶ 22 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |