Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Johnson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided March 24, 2005No. 3-02-0402Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

JUSTICE LYTTON,

partially concurring and partially dissenting:

I agree with Justice Holdridge’s determination that the trial court’s failure to properly consider the Boose factors deprived defendant of a fair trial. I write separately because I disagree with the narrow scope of the remand; I would remand for a new trial, not simply a retrospective hearing on the issue of the stun belt.

By insisting on a limited remand, Justice Holdridge’s opinion contradicts supreme court precedent in a presumed effort to overturn it.1

Justice Holdridge’s resolution is not consistent with our supreme court’s…

2Cases cited38 opinions

  1. People v. BooseIllinois Supreme Court · 1977
  2. People v. MarCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  3. People v. StaleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1977
  4. State v. RobertsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1965
  5. Lovell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API