The People v. Wallenberg

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial judge’s statement on record that he had considered matters not in evidence necessarily rebuts the presumption that the judge considered only admissible evidence in reaching his conclusion
• ordering new trial where judge in bench trial considered facts not admitted into evidence in reaching his conclusion
• ordering new trial where judge in bench trial considered facts not admitted into evidence in reaching his conclusion
• explaining a circuit court errs in a bench trial where the judge considers his or her own “personal beliefs” and “matters which were not in evidence”
• remanding for new trial because when rendering a guilty verdict, the trial court considered matters that were not in evidence but were based on the trial court’s private knowledge
• when finding defendant guilty, trial judge stated that he “happen[ed] to know different” and therefore did not believe the defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).