prosecution witness defense (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

prosecution witness defense in Illinois

5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2019 0 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Hernandezgreen
ill · 2008 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011Taylor, 237 Ill.2d at 374 , 341 Ill.Dec. 445 , 930 N.E.2d 959 ; Hernandez, 231 Ill.2d at 143, 324 Ill.Dec. 511 , 896 N.E.2d 297 .

2011Taylor, 237 Ill.2d at 374 , 341 Ill.Dec. 445 , 930 N.E.2d 959 ; Hernandez, 231 Ill.2d at 143, 324 Ill.Dec. 511 , 896 N.E.2d 297 .

12
People v. Schutzgreen
illappct · 2017 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019However, “ ‘[m]ere speculative or - 14 - hypothetical conflicts are insufficient to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest.’ ” Schutz, 2017 IL App (4th) 140956, ¶ 32 (quoting People v. Bailey, 374 Ill.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Taylor green
ill · 2010
2 sentences

2011Taylor, 237 Ill.2d at 374 , 341 Ill.Dec. 445 , 930 N.E.2d 959 ; Hernandez, 231 Ill.2d at 143, 324 Ill.Dec. 511 , 896 N.E.2d 297 .

2011Taylor, 237 Ill.2d at 374 , 341 Ill.Dec. 445 , 930 N.E.2d 959 ; Hernandez, 231 Ill.2d at 143, 324 Ill.Dec. 511 , 896 N.E.2d 297 .

22011–2011
United States v. Garland Jeffers green
ca7 · 1975
2 sentences

1985In United States v. Jeffers (7th Cir. 1975), 520 F.2d 1256 , the court was asked to decide “whether the failure of defense counsel to conduct a thorough cross-examination of a former client who testified as a prosecution witness requires reversal of a conviction for a conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine.” ( 520 F.2d 1256, 1259 .) In determining whether counsel’s undivided loyalties reside with his current client where the alleged conflict of interest is based on the prior representation of a prosecution witness by defense counsel, the court in Jeffers applied a two-prong test.

1985In United States v. Jeffers (7th Cir. 1975), 520 F.2d 1256 , the court was asked to decide “whether the failure of defense counsel to conduct a thorough cross-examination of a former client who testified as a prosecution witness requires reversal of a conviction for a conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine.” ( 520 F.2d 1256, 1259 .) In determining whether counsel’s undivided loyalties reside with his current client where the alleged conflict of interest is based on the prior representation of a prosecution witness by defense counsel, the court in Jeffers applied a two-prong test.

21985–1989
People v. Flores green
ill · 1989
1 sentence

2019“Where a claim of conflict of interest is based on the prior representation of a prosecution witness by defense counsel, the court should examine the possibility that privileged information acquired from the witness might not have been used to impeach the witness though it would have been relevant in cross-examination.” Flores, 128 Ill. 2d at 84-85 .

12019–2019
People v. Bailey green
illappct · 2007
1 sentence

2019However, “ ‘[m]ere speculative or - 14 - hypothetical conflicts are insufficient to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest.’ ” Schutz, 2017 IL App (4th) 140956, ¶ 32 (quoting People v. Bailey, 374 Ill.

12019–2019
People v. Hernandez green
ill · 2008
1 sentence

2011Taylor, 237 Ill.2d at 374 , 341 Ill.Dec. 445 , 930 N.E.2d 959 ; Hernandez, 231 Ill.2d at 143, 324 Ill.Dec. 511 , 896 N.E.2d 297 .

12011–2011

Where else courts name it

IL 5 (1985–2019) NY 4 (1985–2017) CA 4 (2001–2021) PA 4 (1986–2021) MI 2 (1974–1975) AL 2 (1992–2003)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check