People v. Cordell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that proposing dates outside the 120-day period is an exercise of the court’s discretion, which is required for setting a court schedule
• providing that defendants may not use the provisions of section 103-5(a) as both a sword and a shield
• explaining that legislature amended the speedy-trial statute in the wake of Healy
• allowing the State to seek a continuance of up to 120 days to obtain DNA testing results
• the speedy-trial statute gives defendants the option of accepting or rejecting a trial court’s proposed trial dates
• Section 103-5(a) “provides only a starting point—the date custody begins, and an ending point—120 days later.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).