People v. Stroud

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that acceptance of a guilty plea via closed-circuit television violated the constitutional right to be present during a critical stage of the criminal proceeding
• holding that acceptance of a guilty plea via closed-circuit television violated the constitutional right to be present during a critical stage of the criminal proceeding
• explaining that in a video appearance, “ ‘crucial aspects of defendant’s physical presence may be lost or misinterpreted, such as the participant’s demeanor, facial expressions, and vocal inflections’ ” (quoting People v. Guttendorf, 309 Ill. App. 3d 1044, 1046-47 (2000))
• declining to apply Stincer where defendant's presence at the hearing was likely to be useful to his counsel and his defense
• declining to find that the defendant waived his right to be present for plea proceedings where he was not specifically informed of his right to be present and thus “did not specifically waive his right to be bodily in the courtroom”
• declining to find that the defendant waived his right to be present for plea proceedings where he was not specifically informed of his right to be present and thus “did not specifically waive his right to be bodily in the courtroom”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).