Illinois Supreme Court· 11/30/1990

People v. Holmes

Citations

565 N.E.2d 950
141 Ill. 2d 204
152 Ill. Dec. 268
1990 Ill. LEXIS 141

How courts have described this case

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

finding that counsel’s prior representation of a potential State witness could result in counsel’s cross-examination being “improperly restricted, and the adversarial process frustrated”
finding that 18-month delay had “no significance” because of strength of eyewitness’s identification
finding that 18-month delay had “no significance” because of strength of eyewitness’s identification
noting \that very few persons are keen or trained observers\ and that discrepancies are not uncommon
rejecting the view “that courts can always determine in a definite, precise manner whether a conflict or potential conflict of interest exists” and provide a simple “yes or no” answer
finding an 18-month lapse between the offense and identification had “no significance” in the court’s determination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stamos

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

73 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

46 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.