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.
6 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2023 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. Stokesgreen2 sentences1998See People v. Stokes, 281 Ill. 1998See People v. Stokes , 281 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bannistergreen1 sentence2023Under the plain error doctrine, we may review unpreserved error when “a clear and obvious error occurs and: (1) the evidence is closely balanced; or (2) that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.” People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 65 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
The People v. Catalano
green
2 sentences2023“Whether the accused will be permitted to withdraw the waiver is ordinarily within the discretion of the trial court unless the circumstances indicate that the defendant did not realize the consequences of his jury waiver.” Id. ¶ 34 Defendant acknowledges he failed to preserve this issue by raising it in the trial court but argues we may consider it under either prong of the plain error doctrine. 1976(People v. Catalano, 29 Ill. 2d 197 , 193 N.E.2d 797 , cert, denied, 377 U.S. 904 , 12 L. | 2 | 1976–2023 |
People v. Steiger
green
2 sentences1996People v. Nelson, 17 Ill. 2d 509, 511 , 162 N.E.2d 390 (1959); Steiger, 208 Ill. 1996People v. Nelson, 17 Ill.2d 509, 511 , 162 N.E.2d 390 (1959); Steiger, 208 Ill. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
The People v. Nelson
neutral
2 sentences1996People v. Nelson, 17 Ill. 2d 509, 511 , 162 N.E.2d 390 (1959); Steiger, 208 Ill. 1996People v. Nelson, 17 Ill. 2d 509, 511 , 162 N.E.2d 390 (1959); Steiger, 208 Ill. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Mohawk Liqueur Corp. v. United States
green
1 sentence1976(People v. Catalano, 29 Ill. 2d 197 , 193 N.E.2d 797 , cert, denied, 377 U.S. 904 , 12 L. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox
green
1 sentence1976(People v. Catalano, 29 Ill. 2d 197 , 193 N.E.2d 797 , cert, denied, 377 U.S. 904 , 12 L. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
The PEOPLE v. Palmer
green
2 sentences1965(People v. Palmer, 27 Ill.2d 311 .) The statute does not even require a jury waiver, but requires defendant to request a jury in such a proceeding. 1965We also find nothing in the record to indicate that defendant was unable to understand the consequences of his jury waiver, and we must conclude it was understandingly made. ( People v. Palmer, 27 Ill.2d 311 .) The statute does not even require a jury waiver, but requires defendant to request a jury in such a proceeding. | 1 | 1965–1965 |