Illinois Supreme Court· 9/27/1989

People v. Thomas

Citations

545 N.E.2d 654
131 Ill. 2d 104
137 Ill. Dec. 1
1989 Ill. LEXIS 126

How courts have described this case

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

stating that defendant need not show prejudice under the per se rule where his attorney had “an actual or possible conflict of professional interests”
stating that defendant need not show prejudice under the per se rule where his attorney had \an actual or possible conflict of professional interests\
finding a per se conflict where defense counsel represented a disclosed prosecution witness but failed to call that witness at the defendant’s pretrial suppression hearing to challenge the veracity of the witness’s statements to police
finding the witness was a prosecution witness in a per se conflict analysis where the State extracted responses of \ 'I don't remember' \ in a way so as to highlight her previous statements to police under the guise of impeachment
defendant need not show prejudice under the per se rule when his attorney had “ ‘an actual or possible conflict of professional interests’ ”
defendant need not show prejudice under the per se rule when his attorney had \`an actual or possible conflict of professional interests'\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Calvo

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.