stating that “the entire voir dire of the potential juror must be considered, rather than selected statements,” when determining the juror’s impartiality (italics omitted)
How later courts described this case
- stating that “the entire voir dire of the potential juror must be considered, rather than selected statements,” when determining the juror’s impartiality (italics omitted)
- stating it is “well settled that a witness, whether expert or lay, may provide an opinion on the ultimate issue in a case”
- discussing the circumstances and fairness concerns involved in Jimenez, 284 Ill.App.3d 908, 220 Ill.Dec. 97, 672 N.E.2d 914, a case where the defendant was convicted of murdering a man who opposed the defendant's gang activities
- discussing the circumstances and fairness concerns involved in Jimenez , 284 Ill. App. 3d 908, a case where the defendant was convicted of murdering a man who opposed the defendant’s gang activities
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE HARRISON, dissenting:
For the reasons set forth in my dissent in People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179 (1998), the Illinois death penalty law violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. VIII, XIV) and article I, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 2). Accordingly, we should vacate Terrell’s sentence of death and remand the cause to the circuit court for imposition of a sentence other than death.