By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Leverson, 2024 IL App (1st) 211083 (December). Episode 1090 (Duration 8:22)
Appellate court cannot look the other way when the police flagrantly disregard a defendant’s rights when he asserts them and then badger him into waiving those rights.
[Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Dawson, 2024 IL App (3d) 240129 (December). Episode 1089 (Duration 10:05)
A false promise has the unique potential to make a defendant’s decision to speak irrational and the resulting confession unreliable.
[Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Nash, 2024 IL App (4th) 221078 (November). Episode 1078 (Duration 13:08)
The warrant was not removed from the system due simply to a garden-variety clerical error.
[Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Mathis, 2024 IL App (1st) 211102 (September). Episode 1069 (Duration 11:29)
It is reasonable to conclude that in this case defendant’s confession was caused by the detectives’ false promise.
[Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. O’Daniell, 2024 IL App (5th) 230084 (August). Episode 1062 (Duration 11:46)
Be very suspicious when defense tries to separate the words from the conduct when the words were stated because an individual’s demeanor when making a statement is very important in determining the weight to be given that statement.
[Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Logan, 2024 IL 129054 (March). Episode 1033 (Duration 12:16)
Although this is a close case, Illinois Supreme Court said suspect was told she “had” to participate in an interview and was not told she was free to leave, in combination with the police exerting a high degree of control over the surroundings would have led a reasonable person to believe she was not at liberty to leave.
[Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Dorsey, 2023 IL App (1st) 200304 (September). Episode 1007 (Duration 11:47)
Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, namely, defendant’s repeated requests for counsel that were, from his perspective, ignored, no one would think he was knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to counsel, but rather that he had begun to believe that he did not have a right.
[Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Townsend, 2023 IL App (1st) 200911 (June). Episode 1001 (Duration 18:16)
At some point during the hours while defendant waited at the station, this encounter crossed the line from a voluntary encounter to an involuntary seizure. [Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Pinkett, 2023 IL 127223 (June). Episode 999 (Duration 9:27)
Contrary to the State’s argument that the prosecutor’s comments were proper under Illinois evidentiary rules, defendant’s silence was not evidence of consciousness of guilt.
[Read more…]By Samuel Partida, Jr.
People v. Ward, 2023 IL App (1st) 190364 (March). Episode 985 (Duration 11:03)
This was not a situation where defendant simply did not want to elaborate on a particular subject, instead it was clear he did not want to talk at all anymore.
[Read more…]