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 1 courts 1967–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Larry Joe Miller v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2013Having done that, all would be revealed and the informer privilege, deemed essential for the public interest, for all practical purposes would be no more.” Miller v. United States, 273 F.2d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 1959). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCray v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1982There the need for a truthful verdict outweighs society’s need for the informer privilege. e * “’ (Emphasis added.) (State v. Burnett (1964), 42 N.J. 377, 385-88 , 201 A.2d 39, 43-45 , quoted in People v. McCray (1967), 386 U.S. 300, 306-07 , 18 L. 1982There the need for a truthful verdict outweighs society’s need for the informer privilege. e * “’ (Emphasis added.) (State v. Burnett (1964), 42 N.J. 377, 385-88 , 201 A.2d 39, 43-45 , quoted in People v. McCray (1967), 386 U.S. 300, 306-07 , 18 L. | 3 | 1967–1982 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
2 sentences1984The trial court was, therefore, correct in refusing to quash the search warrant. (2) Motion to Produce the Informer The defendant next argues it was error for the court to deny his motion to produce the informer because without knowing the informer’s identity, he could not make a “substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit” as required by Franks v. Delaware (1978), 438 U.S. 154 , 57 L. 1984The trial court was, therefore, correct in refusing to quash the search warrant. (2) Motion to Produce the Informer The defendant next argues it was error for the court to deny his motion to produce the informer because without knowing the informer’s identity, he could not make a “substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit” as required by Franks v. Delaware (1978), 438 U.S. 154 , 57 L. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Burnett
green
2 sentences1982There the need for a truthful verdict outweighs society’s need for the informer privilege. e * “’ (Emphasis added.) (State v. Burnett (1964), 42 N.J. 377, 385-88 , 201 A.2d 39, 43-45 , quoted in People v. McCray (1967), 386 U.S. 300, 306-07 , 18 L. 1982There the need for a truthful verdict outweighs society’s need for the informer privilege. e * “’ (Emphasis added.) (State v. Burnett (1964), 42 N.J. 377, 385-88 , 201 A.2d 39, 43-45 , quoted in People v. McCray (1967), 386 U.S. 300, 306-07 , 18 L. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
The PEOPLE v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences1971People v. Smith (1968), 40 Ill.2d 501 , 241 N.E.2d 185 . 1971People v. Smith (1968), 40 Ill.2d 501 , 241 N.E.2d 185 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Brown
green
2 sentences1971In People v. Broum (1969), 116 Ill.App.2d 228 , 253 N.E.2d 478 , this court stated at pp. 231-232: “* * * it is argued that the evidence on which the trial court based its findings of guilty was mainly the testimony of an addict-informer whose conduct in making the “controlled buy” was not surveilled and whose testimony was not corroborated. 1971In People v. Broum (1969), 116 Ill.App.2d 228 , 253 N.E.2d 478 , this court stated at pp. 231-232: “* * * it is argued that the evidence on which the trial court based its findings of guilty was mainly the testimony of an addict-informer whose conduct in making the “controlled buy” was not surveilled and whose testimony was not corroborated. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Cooper v. California
green
1 sentence1967“Nothing in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state court judge in every such hearing to assume the arresting officers are committing perjury.” With respect to the claim made by defendant that the failure of the prosecution to identify the informer was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, the Court cited Cooper v. California, 386 US 58 , (decided February 20, 1967), which held that there was no deprivation of a constitutional right where the prosecution fails to call the informer as a witness. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.