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 2011–2024 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. Learngreen2 sentences2024App. 3d at 900 , 919 N.E.2d at 1050 . ¶ 31 Here, Feig was the person who executed the police’s controlled buy, but she refused to cooperate with the subpoena process. 2012App. 3d 891, 898-99 , 919 N.E.2d 1042, 1049 (2009). “[The victim’s] spoken testimony was not incriminating; thus, defendant was not confronted by his accuser nor given the right to rigorously test the accusation against him through cross-examination.” Learn, 396 Ill. | 1 | 3 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2024The United States Supreme Court has explained the confrontation clause “applies to ‘witnesses’ against the accused—in other words, those who ‘bear testimony.’ ” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004) (quoting 2 N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828)). - 10 - The “ ‘confrontation’ ” is “a witness’s bearing of testimony against the defendant; the defendant then has the right to rigorously test that testimony through cross-examination.” Learn, 396 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Learn
green
2 sentences2024The United States Supreme Court has explained the confrontation clause “applies to ‘witnesses’ against the accused—in other words, those who ‘bear testimony.’ ” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004) (quoting 2 N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828)). - 10 - The “ ‘confrontation’ ” is “a witness’s bearing of testimony against the defendant; the defendant then has the right to rigorously test that testimony through cross-examination.” Learn, 396 Ill. 2012Defendant maintains that the only testimony that M.D.B. gave was to uncontested facts and that, because M.D.B. did not defend or explain his out-of-court statements to Plant and did not "give accusatory testimony" or "confront and accuse [defendant] of something," like by stating that "defendant touched my private parts," defendant "was not confronted by his accuser nor given the right to rigorously test the accusation against him through cross-examination." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kitch, 239 Ill.2d at 465 , 347 Ill.Dec. 655 , 942 N.E.2d 1235 (quoting Learn, 396 Ill. | 6 | 2011–2024 |
People v. Kitch
green
2 sentences2012Defendant maintains that the only testimony that M.D.B. gave was to uncontested facts and that, because M.D.B. did not defend or explain his out-of-court statements to Plant and did not "give accusatory testimony" or "confront and accuse [defendant] of something," like by stating that "defendant touched my private parts," defendant "was not confronted by his accuser nor given the right to rigorously test the accusation against him through cross-examination." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kitch, 239 Ill.2d at 465 , 347 Ill.Dec. 655 , 942 N.E.2d 1235 (quoting Learn, 396 Ill. 2012Defendant maintains that the only testimony that M.D.B. gave was to uncontested facts and that, because M.D.B. did not defend or explain his out-of-court statements to Plant and did not "give accusatory testimony" or "confront and accuse [defendant] of something," like by stating that "defendant touched my private parts," defendant "was not confronted by his accuser nor given the right to rigorously test the accusation against him through cross-examination." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kitch, 239 Ill.2d at 465 , 347 Ill.Dec. 655 , 942 N.E.2d 1235 (quoting Learn, 396 Ill. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.