# People v. Bull

> Illinois Supreme Court · November 10, 1998 · 185 Ill. 2d 179

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707813

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. DONALD BULL, Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 10, 1998
- **Citations:** 185 Ill. 2d 179; 235 Ill. Dec. 641; 705 N.E.2d 824; 1998 Ill. LEXIS 1578
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bilandic
- **Judges:** Heiple, Miller, Freeman, McMorrow, Bilandic, Nickels, Harrison
- **Cited by:** 299 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707813

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that defendant's argument that "[n]o amount of procedural due process can prevent all of the errors that can result in an innocent person being convicted of a capital crime" amounts to "a mere attack on the death penalty per se" (internal quotation marks omitted)
- noting that legal oversight of the capital punishment system has diminished and that “[t]he General Assembly has drastically shortened the period in which post-conviction relief can be sought, thereby reducing the time in which exonerating evidence may be discovered”
- rejecting argument that death penalty is unconstitutional because it is "inevitab[le] that innocent persons will be wrongly convicted of capital crimes and executed"
- noting that the trial court found defendant’s allegations to be spurious only after hearing from defendant and his trial counsel

## Opinion text

JUSTICE BILANDIC, also specially concurring:
I join in the majority opinion. I also agree with the observation of the dissent that “[m]y colleagues are decent and good people.” 185 Ill. 2d at 228. I hasten to add that my colleagues in the majority would return that compliment.
In my view, the partial dissent by my learned colleague is a plea for abolition of the death penalty. This argument should be directed to the legislative branch, which has the power to modify or repeal a statute which it enacted.
We must not overlook the fact that in addition to safeguards provided by the judicial branch, a defendant in a capital case has the additional protection of the executive branch (Ill. Const. 1970, art. V, § 12). On January 16, 1996, executive clemency was granted to Guinevere A. Garcia.
Prior to becoming a judge, Benjamin N. Cardozo argued against the death penalty because, “ ‘To me it is far from clear that weak-minded creatures would be more deterred by it than by some other form of punishment. Beyond and above all this, there is the ever-present chance of error. The risk is too great to be incurred by fallible mortals — a class large enough unfortunately to include judges, high and low.’ ” A. Kaufman, Cardozo 395 (1998) (quoting Benjamin N. Cardozo). However, when he became a judge and had responsibility, “[h]e applied New York’s death penalty statutes and voted to affirm numerous death sentences.” A. Kaufman, Cardozo 396 (1998).
The dissent eloquently expresses a personal conviction but does not address the sound and authoritative opinion of the majority.
JUSTICE NICKELS joins in this special concurrence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9707813. Public record. Not legal advice.