integrity defense in Illinois

2002Rather, he commented eight times that defense counsel was ‘raising a smoke screen,’ or ‘filling this courtroom with smoke today,’ or ‘hoping that the smoke he raises in this room today will strangle the truth like it strangled the fife of the ten children’ ” (emphasis in original) who died in a fire set by defendant), and People v. Emerson, 97 Ill. 2d 487, 497 , 455 N.E.2d 41 , 45 (1983) (in which the prosecutor described the smoke screen as “ ‘composed of lies and misrepresentations and innuendoes’ ” and said that “all defense attorneys try to ‘dirty up the victim’ ’’).

1992(People v. Emerson (1983), 97 Ill. 2d 487, 497 , 455 N.E.2d 41 .) Correspondingly, comments disparaging the integrity of defense counsel and implying that the defense was fabricated at the direction of counsel are improper.

2019Id. ¶ 51 Prosecutors may comment on “the evil effects of the crime and urge the jury to administer the law without fear.” People v. Nicholas, 218 Ill. 2d 104, 121-22 (2005).

2019Id. ¶ 51 Prosecutors may comment on “the evil effects of the crime and urge the jury to administer the law without fear.” People v. Nicholas, 218 Ill. 2d 104, 121-22 (2005).

1998People v. Rice , 234 Ill.

1998People v. Rice, 234 Ill.

1982Their activities discredited the integrity of the bar and impeded the administration of justice.” 73 Ill. 2d 46, 56 .

1982Their activities discredited the integrity of the bar and impeded the administration of justice." 73 Ill.2d 46, 56 .

1982App. 3d 825 , 331 N.E.2d 311 .) We believe the prosecutor committed error in the instant case when he characterized the defense theory as nonsense, as “the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,” and when he said, “if you buy that [the defense theory], I’m sure counsel would like to talk to you after this case and sell you some stock.” We do not believe, however, that the prosecutor impugned the integrity of defense counsel because he did not accuse the defendant or his counsel of perpetrating fraud or suborning perjury.

1979(People v. Weathers (1975), 62 Ill. 2d 114 , 338 N.E.2d 880 ; People v. Stock (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 461 , 309 N.E.2d 19 ; People v. Martin (1975), 29 Ill.

1976Contrary to the decision relied on by the defendant (People v. Stock, 56 Ill. 2d 461 , 309 N.E.2d 19 ), the instant case did not involve a situation where the prosecutor blatantly and repeatedly attacked the integrity of the defense counsel as weE as commented on the defendant’s failure to take the stand.

1976Contrary to the decision relied on by the defendant (People v. Stock, 56 Ill. 2d 461 , 309 N.E.2d 19 ), the instant case did not involve a situation where the prosecutor blatantly and repeatedly attacked the integrity of the defense counsel as weE as commented on the defendant’s failure to take the stand.

2025TT’s only argument in support of this requirement is that the rights involved are fundamental—citing In re J.C., 2020 IL App (2d) 200063 , ¶ 26—which is of course true, but that does not demonstrate that admission of this testimony, assuming it was inadmissible hearsay, affected the integrity of the hearing. ¶ 63 To the contrary, Mr. Lyons’s hearsay testimony about the incident in February 2020 when TT was arrested for attacking J.M.’s father is also in the service plans, the admission of which TT stipulated to.

2020Simms, 192 Ill. 2d at 396 . ¶ 83 Defendant next argues the prosecutor made improper closing and rebuttal arguments that disparaged the integrity of defense counsel by accusing counsel of presenting a “smoke and mirrors” defense meant to confuse the jury, inserted his own opinion, and appealed - 25 - to the emotions of the jury by arguing defendant’s defense was concerning and disturbing.

2011App.3d 1, 13 , 317 Ill.Dec. 54 , 880 N.E.2d 1046 (2007) (trial court is in far superior position than reviewing court to assess witness's tone of voice). ¶ 69 We also find unpersuasive the defendant's argument that the State's rebuttal argument "needlessly degraded the defense." The defendant insists that the prosecutor unfairly diminished the integrity of her defense by claiming that (1) the defense "came out of thin air" and (2) defense counsel's point that none of the victim's hair was found on the carpet to corroborate Jimenez's testimony was "CSI imaginary stuff." The State's argument tha

2011App.3d 1, 13 , 317 Ill.Dec. 54 , 880 N.E.2d 1046 (2007) (trial court is in far superior position than reviewing court to assess witness's tone of voice). ¶ 69 We also find unpersuasive the defendant's argument that the State's rebuttal argument "needlessly degraded the defense." The defendant insists that the prosecutor unfairly diminished the integrity of her defense by claiming that (1) the defense "came out of thin air" and (2) defense counsel's point that none of the victim's hair was found on the carpet to corroborate Jimenez's testimony was "CSI imaginary stuff." The State's argument tha

2002Rather, he commented eight times that defense counsel was “raising a smoke screen,” or “filling this courtroom with smoke today,” or “hoping that the smoke he raises in this room today will strangle the truth like it strangled the life of the ten children” ’ (emphasis in original) who died in a fire set by defendant), and People v. Emerson, 97 Ill. 2d 487, 497 , 455 N.E.2d 41 , 45 (1983) (in which the prosecutor described the smoke screen as ‘ “composed of lies and misrepresentations and innuendoes” ’ and said that ‘all defense attorneys try to “dirty up the victim” ’).” Beler, 327 Ill.

1997PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DURING CLOSING ARGUMENTS Not only are the People prohibited during closing arguments from making comments not based upon, or misstating, the evidence (People v. Linscott, 142 Ill. 2d 22 (1991)), they are also prohibited from making comments that disparage the integrity of defense counsel.

1997People v. Lyles, 106 Ill. 2d 373 (1985).

1994(In re Timpone (1993), 157 Ill. 2d 178, 197 .) It is vital that this court preserve public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.

1993(See, e.g., In re McAuliffe (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 254, 263 .) Other State courts already allow the use of probation although the attorney’s misconduct was not occasioned by substance abuse or mental disability.