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 1 courts 2008–2026 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. O'CONNELLgreen2 sentences2008O’Connell, 227 Ill. 2d at 38 (holding that a trial court does not err in sua sponte denying a defendant’s motion for section 116 — 3 testing when the motion is insufficient as a matter of law). 2008O’Connell, 227 Ill. 2d at 38 (holding that a trial court does not err in sua sponte denying a defendant’s motion for section 116-3 testing when the motion is insufficient as a matter of law). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Barrowgreen1 sentence2026Even assuming defendant presented a prima facie case showing identity was a central issue at trial, the court did not err in denying his section 116-3 motion because the evidence defendant seeks to test 6 is not materially relevant to his claim of actual innocence. 1 See People v. Barrow, 2011 IL App (3d) 100086, ¶¶ 26, 32 (denial of a section 116-3 motion is appropriate where evidence would not materially advance defendant’s actual innocence claim despite a prima facie showing that identity was at issue). ¶ 18 In coming to this conclusion, we reject defendant’s contention that section 116-3 o | 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. Savory
green
2 sentences2008The issue in the instant case is whether the evidence defendant seeks to test is materially relevant to his claim of innocence. “[E]vidence which is ‘materially relevant’ to a defendant’s claim of actual innocence is simply evidence which tends to significantly advance that claim.” Savory, 197 Ill. 2d at 213 . 2008In his motion, defendant indicated that he sought testing of: “(1) a baseball cap and the victim’s clothes and purse (for traces of blood and/or perspiration); (2) a knife for same; (3) the victim’s nail clippings; (4) eyebrow and head hairs.” He further asserted that the testing had the potential to produce materially relevant evidence, explaining: “the result of the testing has the scientific potential to produce ‘conclusive’ findings that movant was not the donor and that a third-unknown party was which would wholly exonerate movant altogether.” The State, relying on People v. Savory, 197 I | 4 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 396 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.