Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Harris

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided March 24, 2009No. 3-07-0481Published

1DissentJustice Holdridge

As the majority points out, defendant’s trial judge never knew that he wore a stun belt during trial. Therein lies the problem. In People v. Martinez, 347 Ill. App. 3d 1001 (2004), the evidence revealed that the Will County sheriff had a policy of requiring all felony defendants to wear an electronic security belt in the courtroom. The trial judge deferred to this policy, stating that “he did not want to disrupt the sheriff’s standard operating procedure.” Martinez, 347 Ill. App. 3d at 1003. Although the instant judge did not knowingly defer to the sheriff’s policy, the same concerns are…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. BooseIllinois Supreme Court · 1977
  2. People v. AllenIllinois Supreme Court · 2006
  3. People v. MartinezAppellate Court of Illinois · 2004
  4. People v. JohnsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 2005
  5. People v. JohnsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API