finding that multiple references to the defendant’s criminal history and mug shots from prison prejudiced his right to be presumed innocent; no specific limiting instruction was given
How later courts described this case
- finding that multiple references to the defendant’s criminal history and mug shots from prison prejudiced his right to be presumed innocent; no specific limiting instruction was given
- holding that testimony about prison mug shots is prejudicial error and noting the risk of prejudice from introduction into evidence of mug shots
- principal’s retrial ordered to be separate due to possible prejudicial impact of accomplice’s insanity defense
- where the testimony referred to “pictures from the prison”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by People v. Edgeworth, 30 Ill. App. 3d 289 (1975)
The cases cited by petitioner in his brief developing this issue (People v. Williams (1966), 72 Ill.App.2d 96, 218 N.E.2d 771; United States v. Reed (7th Cir. 1967), 376 F.2d 226) are distinguishable, and the recent case of People v. Johnson (1973), 11 Ill.App.3d 745, 297 N,E.2d 683, is in point.
The opinion
ENOCH, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Reluctantly I find myself in disagreement with my colleagues. Back in 1949, in the case of United States v. Levi, 7 Cir., 177 F.2d 827, 830-833 , this Court laid down suitable principles for the determination of harmless error. Judge Duffy speaking for the Court said that we should consider whether or not the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. He then went on to quote with approval from Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 . In that case the Supreme Court had set up a practical standard: if, when all is said and done, the conviction is sure that the error did not influence the jury or had but very slight effect, the verdict should stand. The evidence of the defendant’s guilt here was overwhelming. After careful consideration of the record I am left with the sure conviction that the error which so concerns the majority did not influence the jury or, at worst, had but very slight effect. I would, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.