ILCS » Chapter 725 · Act 220
Illinois Compiled Statutes

725 ILCS 220/3 (2026)

Witness from another state summoned to testify in this State

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(725 ILCS 220/3) (from Ch. 38, par. 156-3)
    Sec. 3. Witness from another state summoned to testify in this State.
    If a person in any state, which by its laws has made provision for commanding persons within its borders to attend and testify in criminal prosecutions, or grand jury investigations commenced or about to commence, in this state, is a material witness in a prosecution pending in a court in this state, or in a grand jury investigation which has commenced or is about to commence, a judge of such court may issue a certificate under the seal of the court stating these facts and specifying the number of days the witness will be required. Said certificate may include a recommendation that the witness be taken into immediate custody and delivered to an officer of this state to assure his attendance in this state. This certificate shall be presented to a judge of a court of record in the county in which the witness is found.
    If the witness is summoned to attend and testify in this state he shall be tendered the sum of 10 cents a mile for each mile by the ordinary traveled route to and from the court where the prosecution is pending, and 5 dollars for each day that he is required to travel and attend as a witness. A witness who has appeared in accordance with the provisions of the summons shall not be required to remain within this state a longer period of time than the period mentioned in the certificate, unless otherwise ordered by the court. If such witness, after coming into this state, fails without good cause to attend and testify as directed in the summons, he shall be punished in the manner provided for the punishment of any witness who disobeys a summons issued from a court in this state.
(Source: Laws 1967, p. 3804.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: People v. Smith, 841 N.E.2d 489 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Smith, 841 N.E.2d 489 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2005). · cites it 4× “The State filed an emergency motion to quash defendant's subpoena, arguing that the subpoena was invalid because defendant failed to follow the procedures under the Witness Attendance Act, and Lockhart's testimony was not relevant for the issues raised in defendant's motions.”
People v. McLaurin, 2012 IL App (1st) 102943, 982 N.E.2d 832. · cites it 2× “¶3 In this direct appeal, McLaurin argues that: (1) defense counsel was ineffective because counsel should have secured the testimony of eyewitness Timothy Williams through section 3 of the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in…”
People v. Burt, 658 N.E.2d 375 (Ill. 1995). · cites it 2× “In order to secure the attendance of these witnesses, defendant moved for issuance of a "certificate under the seal of the court” pursuant to section 3 of the Uniform Act to secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings (Act) (725 ILCS…”
People v. Smith, 826 N.E.2d 1225 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2005). · cites it 4× “Instead of attempting to secure Lockhart's presence at the suppression hearing through procedures set out in the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings (725 ILCS 220/3 (West 2000)) (the Witness Attendance Act)…”
People v. McLaurin, 2015 IL App (1st) 131362, 32 N.E.3d 94. · cites it 3× “On first direct appeal, the defendant raised four issues by arguing that: (1) defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to secure the testimony of eyewitness Timothy Williams through section 3 of the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or…”
People v. McLaurin, 2015 IL App (1st) 131362. · cites it 3× “On first direct appeal, the defendant raised four issues by arguing that: (1) defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to secure the testimony of eyewitness Timothy Williams through section 3 of the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or…”
People v. Murry, 2025 IL App (1st) 221202, 269 N.E.3d 101. “See 725 ILCS 220/3 (West 2018) (describing Illinois process to certify that out-of-state person is a “material witness”); Wis.”
eople v. Smith, No. 1-02-1931 Rel (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Dec. 15, 2005). · cites it 2× “The State filed an emergency motion to quash defendant's subpoena, arguing that the subpoena was invalid because defendant failed to follow the procedures under the Witness Attendance Act, and Lockhart's testimony was not relevant for the issues raised in defendant's motions.”
People v. Smith, No. 1-02-1931 Rel (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Mar. 31, 2005). · cites it 2× “Instead of attempting to secure Lockhart's presence at the suppression hearing through procedures set out in the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings (725 ILCS 220/3 (West 2000)) (the Witness Attendance Act)…”
In re Commitment of Walls, 2022 IL App (1st) 151075-U. “Fred Berlin, a professor at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, to be summoned as an out-of-state witness under the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 220/3 (West 2012)). According to the motion, Dr.”
People v. Clay, 2020 IL App (1st) 170660-U. “In addition to finding that the trial court had ignored the Illinois Witness Attendance Act (725 ILCS 220/3 (West 2008)), which authorizes Illinois courts to issue subpoenas of out-of-state witness, the McLaurin court held that the parties and the trial court had known since the…”
People v. Logan, 2020 IL App (1st) 180712-U. “In addition to finding - 21 - 1-18-0712 that the trial court had ignored the Illinois Witness Attendance Act (725 ILCS 220/3 (West 2008)), which authorizes Illinois courts to issue subpoenas of out-of-state witness, the McLaurin court held that the parties and the trial court…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.