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 1976–2023 2 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. Bellgreen2 sentences1977App.2d 479 , 244 N.E.2d 321 .) However, an explanation of the ramifications of a jury waiver is necessary only when the facts and circumstances indicate defendant did not understand his right to trial by jury and, in this regard, he is held to have knowingly and understandingly waived a jury trial when his attorney, with whom he had an opportunity to confer, waives a jury in his presence and without his objection. ( People v. Sailor (1969), 43 Ill.2d 256 , 253 N.E.2d 397 .) Our supreme court, in People v. Murrell (1975), 60 Ill.2d 287 , 326 N.E.2d 762 , said that the preferred jury waiver proc 1977App. 2d 479 , 244 N.E.2d 321 .) However, an explanation of the ramifications of a jury waiver is necessary only when the facts and circumstances indicate defendant did not understand his right to trial by jury and, in this regard, he is held to have knowingly and understanding^ waived a jury trial when his attorney, with whom he had an opportunity to confer, waives a jury in his presence and without his objection. | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Steiger
green
2 sentences2023A circuit court need not “give a defendant an explanation concerning the ramifications of a jury waiver unless there is an indication that the defendant did not understand his right to a jury trial.” Steiger, 208 Ill. 2022Id. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
People v. Villareal
green
1 sentence1991(People v. Villareal (1983), 114 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Murrell
green
2 sentences1977App.2d 479 , 244 N.E.2d 321 .) However, an explanation of the ramifications of a jury waiver is necessary only when the facts and circumstances indicate defendant did not understand his right to trial by jury and, in this regard, he is held to have knowingly and understandingly waived a jury trial when his attorney, with whom he had an opportunity to confer, waives a jury in his presence and without his objection. ( People v. Sailor (1969), 43 Ill.2d 256 , 253 N.E.2d 397 .) Our supreme court, in People v. Murrell (1975), 60 Ill.2d 287 , 326 N.E.2d 762 , said that the preferred jury waiver proc 1977App.2d 479 , 244 N.E.2d 321 .) However, an explanation of the ramifications of a jury waiver is necessary only when the facts and circumstances indicate defendant did not understand his right to trial by jury and, in this regard, he is held to have knowingly and understandingly waived a jury trial when his attorney, with whom he had an opportunity to confer, waives a jury in his presence and without his objection. ( People v. Sailor (1969), 43 Ill.2d 256 , 253 N.E.2d 397 .) Our supreme court, in People v. Murrell (1975), 60 Ill.2d 287 , 326 N.E.2d 762 , said that the preferred jury waiver proc | 1 | 1977–1977 |
The People v. Sailor
green
2 sentences1977App.2d 479 , 244 N.E.2d 321 .) However, an explanation of the ramifications of a jury waiver is necessary only when the facts and circumstances indicate defendant did not understand his right to trial by jury and, in this regard, he is held to have knowingly and understandingly waived a jury trial when his attorney, with whom he had an opportunity to confer, waives a jury in his presence and without his objection. ( People v. Sailor (1969), 43 Ill.2d 256 , 253 N.E.2d 397 .) Our supreme court, in People v. Murrell (1975), 60 Ill.2d 287 , 326 N.E.2d 762 , said that the preferred jury waiver proc 1977App.2d 479 , 244 N.E.2d 321 .) However, an explanation of the ramifications of a jury waiver is necessary only when the facts and circumstances indicate defendant did not understand his right to trial by jury and, in this regard, he is held to have knowingly and understandingly waived a jury trial when his attorney, with whom he had an opportunity to confer, waives a jury in his presence and without his objection. ( People v. Sailor (1969), 43 Ill.2d 256 , 253 N.E.2d 397 .) Our supreme court, in People v. Murrell (1975), 60 Ill.2d 287 , 326 N.E.2d 762 , said that the preferred jury waiver proc | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Turner
green
1 sentence1976App. 2d 146 , 225 N.E.2d 65 .) However, an explanation of the ramifications of a jury waiver is necessary only where the facts and circumstances indicate that defendant does not understand his right to trial by jury. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Beathea
green
1 sentence1976(People v. Beathea (1974), 24 Ill. | 1 | 1976–1976 |