Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Burnidge

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided September 11, 1997No. 81343Published

1Concurrence

CHIEF JUSTICE FREEMAN,

specially concurring:

Defendant in this case has framed the issue on appeal as one requiring an analysis which is ordinarily reserved for those cases challenging the admissibility of evidence as being the "fruit of the poisonous tree.” The majority has inclined its ear and, correspondingly, engages in an analysis to determine whether, regardless of Rev. Golisch’s violation of the clergy testimonial privilege, the challenged evidence would have been inevitably discovered and, therefore, properly admissible. 178 Ill. 2d at 435-36. I agree with the majority’s ultimate…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Nix v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. People v. EdwardsIllinois Supreme Court · 1991
  3. United States v. Otto Jones and Ann JonesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
  4. People v. DurganAppellate Court of Illinois · 1996
  5. People v. PerezAppellate Court of Illinois · 1994

1 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