laws violation in Illinois

1987Ed. 2d 649 , 107 S. Ct. 708 .) In Griffith, the court abandoned the three-part test and held that new principles of constitutional law must be applied retroactively to all cases still pending on direct review, even if the new rule is a “clear break with the past.” The majority’s effort to salvage the wreck of the three-part Laws analysis in the context of cases on direct review is inconsistent with Griffith.

1987Ed. 2d 649 , 107 S. Ct. 708 .) In Griffith, the court abandoned the three-part test and held that new principles of constitutional law must be applied retroactively to all cases still pending on direct review, even if the new rule is a “clear break with the past.” The majority’s effort to salvage the wreck of the three-part Laws analysis in the context of cases on direct review is inconsistent with Griffith.

1980Tex. 1980), 489 F. Supp. 471, 475 .) We conclude plaintiff has been denied equal protection of the laws in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.

1975The defendant states that “the systematic exclusion of blacks from a jury is a denial of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), 100 U.S. 303 , 25 L.Ed. 664 ; Eubanks v. Louisiana (1958), 356 U.S. 584 , 2 L.Ed.2d 991 , 78 S.Ct. 970 .) But neither Strauder or Eubanks touches the precise question raised here.

1975The defendant states that “the systematic exclusion of blacks from a jury is a denial of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), 100 U.S. 303 , 25 L.Ed. 664 ; Eubanks v. Louisiana (1958), 356 U.S. 584 , 2 L.Ed.2d 991 , 78 S.Ct. 970 .) But neither Strauder or Eubanks touches the precise question raised here.

1975The defendant states that “the systematic exclusion of blacks from a jury is a denial of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), 100 U.S. 303 , 25 L.Ed. 664 ; Eubanks v. Louisiana (1958), 356 U.S. 584 , 2 L.Ed.2d 991 , 78 S.Ct. 970 .) But neither Strauder or Eubanks touches the precise question raised here.

1975The defendant states that “the systematic exclusion of blacks from a jury is a denial of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), 100 U.S. 303 , 25 L.Ed. 664 ; Eubanks v. Louisiana (1958), 356 U.S. 584 , 2 L.Ed.2d 991 , 78 S.Ct. 970 .) But neither Strauder or Eubanks touches the precise question raised here.

1975The supreme court considered this issue in People v. Harris (1959), 17 Ill.2d 446, 451 , 161 N.E.2d 809, 811-12 , and there concluded that: “The fact that the State’s exercise of peremptory challenges resulted in excluding [blacks] from the petit jury did not deprive defendant of any constitutional right. [Citation.] The right of peremptory challenge is a substantial one which should not be abridged or denied.

1975The supreme court considered this issue in People v. Harris (1959), 17 Ill.2d 446, 451 , 161 N.E.2d 809, 811-12 , and there concluded that: “The fact that the State’s exercise of peremptory challenges resulted in excluding [blacks] from the petit jury did not deprive defendant of any constitutional right. [Citation.] The right of peremptory challenge is a substantial one which should not be abridged or denied.

1935This same contention met an adverse decision in Lipman v. Goebel, supra, where we expressly held that section 5 of chapter 77 did not violate either the equal protection of the laws clause of the fourteenth amendment to the Federal constitution or section 12 of article 2 of the State constitution.

1915(People v. Brady, 262 Ill. 578 , and cases cited; People v. Henning Co. 260 id. 554; Home Ins.