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.
7 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 1 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. Reddgreen2 sentences2026And Harris’s claim that he did not testify because he feared being prosecuted does not render his testimony unavailable at the time of trial because he had been granted immunity for his testimony. ¶ 137 Moreover, even if Harris had not been granted immunity, “[n]either an unreasonable fear of self-incrimination nor a mere reluctance to testify is a ground for claiming the privilege,” and “the mere say-so of a witness does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Redd, 135 Ill. 2d 252, 304 (1990)). 2011App. 3d 499, 513 (2009). ¶ 23 Nevertheless, “[n]either an unreasonable fear of self-incrimination nor a mere reluctance to testify is a ground for claiming the privilege.” People v. Redd, 135 Ill. 2d 252, 304 (1990). | 2 | 5 |
People v. Younggreen1 sentence1993(Redd, 135 Ill. 2d at 304 ; see Young, 231 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Zisook
green
2 sentences1990(In re Zisook (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 321, 331 .) Neither an unreasonable fear of self-incrimination nor a mere reluctance to testify is a ground for claiming the privilege. 1990The privilege against self-incrimination does not exist where there are no reasonable grounds to fear self-incrimination. ( In re Zisook (1981), 88 Ill.2d 321, 331 .) Neither an unreasonable fear of self-incrimination nor a mere reluctance to testify is a ground for claiming the privilege. ( Zisook, 88 Ill.2d at 331 .) Furthermore, the mere "say-so" of a witness "does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination." ( Hoffman v. United States (1951), 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 95 L.Ed. 1118, 1124 , 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 .) Once a witness asserts his fifth amendment privilege not to incriminate himse | 2 | 1990–1996 |
Hoffman v. United States
green
2 sentences1994Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 3 — 5(b).) In People v. Redd (1990), 135 Ill. 2d 252 , 553 N.E.2d 316 , our supreme court pointed out: "The privilege against self-incrimination does not exist where there are no reasonable grounds to fear self-incrimination. [Citation.] Neither an unreasonable fear of self-incrimination nor a mere reluctance to testify is a ground for claiming the privilege. [Citation.] Furthermore, the mere 'say-so’ of a witness 'does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination.’ (Hoffman v. United States (1951), 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 95 L. 1994Stat. 1991, ch. 38, par. 3 — 5(b).) In People v. Redd (1990), 135 Ill. 2d 252 , 553 N.E.2d 316 , our supreme court pointed out: "The privilege against self-incrimination does not exist where there are no reasonable grounds to fear self-incrimination. [Citation.] Neither an unreasonable fear of self-incrimination nor a mere reluctance to testify is a ground for claiming the privilege. [Citation.] Furthermore, the mere 'say-so’ of a witness 'does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination.’ (Hoffman v. United States (1951), 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 95 L. | 2 | 1990–1994 |
People v. Edgeston
green
1 sentence2011It is not the witness, therefore, but rather the trial court that determines if “under the particular facts, there is a real danger of incrimination.” Edgeston, 157 Ill. 2d at 220 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Thornton
green
1 sentence1990App.3d 330, 337 ; Thornton, 120 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Rogers v. United States
green
2 sentences1990The privilege against self-incrimination does not exist where there are no reasonable grounds to fear self-incrimination. ( In re Zisook (1981), 88 Ill.2d 321, 331 .) Neither an unreasonable fear of self-incrimination nor a mere reluctance to testify is a ground for claiming the privilege. ( Zisook, 88 Ill.2d at 331 .) Furthermore, the mere "say-so" of a witness "does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination." ( Hoffman v. United States (1951), 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 95 L.Ed. 1118, 1124 , 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 .) Once a witness asserts his fifth amendment privilege not to incriminate himse 1990The privilege against self-incrimination does not exist where there are no reasonable grounds to fear self-incrimination. ( In re Zisook (1981), 88 Ill.2d 321, 331 .) Neither an unreasonable fear of self-incrimination nor a mere reluctance to testify is a ground for claiming the privilege. ( Zisook, 88 Ill.2d at 331 .) Furthermore, the mere "say-so" of a witness "does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination." ( Hoffman v. United States (1951), 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 95 L.Ed. 1118, 1124 , 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 .) Once a witness asserts his fifth amendment privilege not to incriminate himse | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Baker
green
1 sentence1990The privilege against self-incrimination does not exist where there are no reasonable grounds to fear self-incrimination. ( In re Zisook (1981), 88 Ill.2d 321, 331 .) Neither an unreasonable fear of self-incrimination nor a mere reluctance to testify is a ground for claiming the privilege. ( Zisook, 88 Ill.2d at 331 .) Furthermore, the mere "say-so" of a witness "does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination." ( Hoffman v. United States (1951), 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 95 L.Ed. 1118, 1124 , 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 .) Once a witness asserts his fifth amendment privilege not to incriminate himse | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Prater
green
1 sentence1990The privilege against self-incrimination does not exist where there are no reasonable grounds to fear self-incrimination. ( In re Zisook (1981), 88 Ill.2d 321, 331 .) Neither an unreasonable fear of self-incrimination nor a mere reluctance to testify is a ground for claiming the privilege. ( Zisook, 88 Ill.2d at 331 .) Furthermore, the mere "say-so" of a witness "does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination." ( Hoffman v. United States (1951), 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 95 L.Ed. 1118, 1124 , 71 S.Ct. 814, 818 .) Once a witness asserts his fifth amendment privilege not to incriminate himse | 1 | 1990–1990 |