finding in light of the context of the proceeding, the prosecutor's comments about the defendant not testifying were not improper nor did the comments deprive the defendant of a fair trial where the jury was instructed that the defendant's decision not to testify was not to be considered in rendering the verdict
How later courts described this case
- finding in light of the context of the proceeding, the prosecutor's comments about the defendant not testifying were not improper nor did the comments deprive the defendant of a fair trial where the jury was instructed that the defendant's decision not to testify was not to be considered in rendering the verdict
- holding that “prosecutor’s comments during rebuttal argument regarding defense counsel’s ability to subpoena [a witness] were invited by defense counsel’s argument that the State failed to call [the person] as a witness”
- concluding that “prosecutor did not shift the burden of proof to defendant” by commenting on defendant’s subpoena power where prosecutor also “acknowledged that the burden of proof was on the State”
- holding that “[a] delay is occasioned by the defendant and charged to the defendant when the defendant’s acts caused or contributed to a delay resulting in the postponement of trial”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE HARRISON, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that Ronald Kliner’s conviction should be upheld. For the reasons set forth in my dissent in People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179 (1998), however, this state’s present death penalty law does not meet the requirements of the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. VIII, XIV) or article I, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2). Accordingly, we should vacate Kliner’s death sentence and remand the cause to the circuit court for imposition of a sentence other than death.