Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Pulley

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided May 14, 1973No. 71-62Published

1DissentJustice Stouder

I do not agree with the majority of the court. In my view trial errors occurred which were prejudicial and require that defendant be granted a new trial.

The first issue which I would like to discuss is that relating to the request of the jury to have testimony reread and the trial judge’s reply, “No. It is not permissible to read or play back testimony.” A substantially similar problem arose in the recent case of People v. Queen, 8 Ill.App.3d 858, 290 N.E.2d 631 (petition for leave to appeal granted) and in my dissent in the Queen case I discussed at some length many aspects of this problem…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. HarmonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1968
  2. The PEOPLE v. GersbacherIllinois Supreme Court · 1970
  3. People v. QueenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API