purpose of the constitutional requirement in Illinois

1990The purpose of the constitutional requirement that a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel is to insure that the defendant will receive a fair trial. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .) Moreover, the benchmark for determining an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is whether counsel's performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. ( People v. Cunningham (1989), 191 Ill.App.3d 332, 337 , 138 Ill.Dec. 598 , 547 N.E.2d 765

1990The purpose of the constitutional requirement that a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel is to insure that the defendant will receive a fair trial. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .) Moreover, the benchmark for determining an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is whether counsel's performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. ( People v. Cunningham (1989), 191 Ill.App.3d 332, 337 , 138 Ill.Dec. 598 , 547 N.E.2d 765

1990The purpose of the constitutional requirement that a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel is to insure that the defendant will receive a fair trial. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .) Moreover, the benchmark for determining an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is whether counsel's performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. ( People v. Cunningham (1989), 191 Ill.App.3d 332, 337 , 138 Ill.Dec. 598 , 547 N.E.2d 765

1990The purpose of the constitutional requirement that a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel is to insure that the defendant will receive a fair trial. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .) Moreover, the benchmark for determining an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is whether counsel's performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. ( People v. Cunningham (1989), 191 Ill.App.3d 332, 337 , 138 Ill.Dec. 598 , 547 N.E.2d 765

1990The purpose of the constitutional requirement that a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel is to insure that the defendant will receive a fair trial. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .) Moreover, the benchmark for determining an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is whether counsel's performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. ( People v. Cunningham (1989), 191 Ill.App.3d 332, 337 , 138 Ill.Dec. 598 , 547 N.E.2d 765

1990The purpose of the constitutional requirement that a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel is to insure that the defendant will receive a fair trial. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .) Moreover, the benchmark for determining an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is whether counsel's performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. ( People v. Cunningham (1989), 191 Ill.App.3d 332, 337 , 138 Ill.Dec. 598 , 547 N.E.2d 765

1990The purpose of the constitutional requirement that a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel is to insure that the defendant will receive a fair trial. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .) Moreover, the benchmark for determining an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is whether counsel's performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. ( People v. Cunningham (1989), 191 Ill.App.3d 332, 337 , 138 Ill.Dec. 598 , 547 N.E.2d 765

1990The purpose of the constitutional requirement that a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel is to insure that the defendant will receive a fair trial. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 .) Moreover, the benchmark for determining an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is whether counsel's performance so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. ( People v. Cunningham (1989), 191 Ill.App.3d 332, 337 , 138 Ill.Dec. 598 , 547 N.E.2d 765

1981I agree that in determining retroactivity, the following factors should be considered: the purpose of the constitutional rule, the extent of reliance on past standards, and the effect on the administration of justice. ( Stovall v. Denno (1967), 388 U.S. 293, 297 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1203 , 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970 .) The principal emphasis is placed on purpose.

1981I agree that in determining retroactivity, the following factors should be considered: the purpose of the constitutional rule, the extent of reliance on past standards, and the effect on the administration of justice. ( Stovall v. Denno (1967), 388 U.S. 293, 297 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1203 , 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970 .) The principal emphasis is placed on purpose.

1981But the purpose of the fourth amendment's exclusionary rule is twofold: to deter illegal police conduct and to prevent contamination of the judicial process with evidence seized in violation of *509 the Bill of Rights. ( Stone v. Powell (1976), 428 U.S. 465, 484 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067, 1081-82 , 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3047-48 .) I believe that the majority confuses the second justification, often referred to as the "imperative of judicial integrity" (1 W.

1981But the purpose of the fourth amendment's exclusionary rule is twofold: to deter illegal police conduct and to prevent contamination of the judicial process with evidence seized in violation of *509 the Bill of Rights. ( Stone v. Powell (1976), 428 U.S. 465, 484 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1067, 1081-82 , 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3047-48 .) I believe that the majority confuses the second justification, often referred to as the "imperative of judicial integrity" (1 W.

1950(Village of Averyville v. City of Peoria, 335 Ill. 106 .) The section is not subject to the objection urged.

1929(McGurn v. Board of Education, 133 Ill. 122 .) .It cannot be said that this clause of the constitution embraces every enactment which in every degree, however remotely, may affect the prior law on a given subject, for to so hold would be to bring about a greater evil than the one sought to be obviated by this clause.

1909The purpose of the constitutional requirement as to the title of legislative acts was discussed in Milne v. People, 224 Ill. 125 , and cases there cited.