Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of ...
Judicial misconduct occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct.. Actions that can be classified as judicial misconduct include: conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts (as an extreme example: "falsification of facts" at summary judgment); using the ...
The defendants then filed a petition under the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 38 §§ 826–832), under which only questions arising under the State or Federal Constitution could be raised, to obtain a certified copy of the entire record for their appeal, alleging that there were manifest nonconstitutional errors in the trial that entitled them to have their ...
Illinois prosecutors charged Robert Crimo Jr. under a unconstitutionally vague law, his lawyer argued at a hearing earlier this month in Waukegan, north of Highland Park where the shooting took place.
Unsatisfied with this explanation, the Illinois Supreme Court held that Rivera was wrongly denied his challenge to dismiss the juror. The state supreme court found no evidence that Rivera's attorney used discriminatory considerations in arguing for the dismissal of the juror in question. Despite this, the state supreme court decided that such a ...
The 2-1 decision from the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirms a ruling from U.S. District Judge John Kness last year that five-term U.S. Rep. Mike Bost of Murphysboro and two GOP ...
During the hearing on the motion, the prosecution argued that the search was justified by Section 108-9 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 108-9), which reads, "In the execution of the warrant the person executing the same may reasonably detain the search any person in the place at the time ...
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the removal of an unruly criminal defendant during his trial. In its decision, the court ruled that a trial judge may remove a stubbornly defiant defendant from the courtroom, following a warning from the judge that he will be removed if his disruptive behavior continues.