Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Barker

932 N.E.2d 1207 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Barker

25 Citing cases

  1. People v. Barker

    2015 Ill. App. 123238 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    ¶ 3 Many of the facts of this case have previously been recited in defendant's previous appeals. People v. Barker, No. 1-05-3483 (2008) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23); People v. Barker (Barker II), 403 Ill. App. 3d 515 (2010). We include here the facts relevant to the instant appeal. ¶ 4 Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first degree murder, home invasion, and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault. The trial court sentenced defendant to 60 years' incarceration for murder, a concurrent 20 years' incarceration for home invasion, and two consecutive 20-year terms for aggravated criminal sexual assault. On direct appeal, this court vacated defendant's conviction and sentence for home invasion, but affirmed all other convictions and sentences.

  2. People v. Zapata

    2014 Ill. App. 2d 120825 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 11 times
    Concluding that Y–STR testing has gained general acceptance in the relevant community

    ¶ 11 Before proceeding, a brief overview of DNA profiling techniques is in order. In People v. Barker, 403 Ill.App.3d 515, 527–28, 342 Ill.Dec. 746, 932 N.E.2d 1207 (2010), the court observed as follows: “In its earliest form, DNA forensic technology focused on those parts of the DNA molecule where there is a significant variation of base pair patterns. [Citation.]

  3. People v. Pike

    2016 Ill. App. 122626 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 78 times
    Stating that court substantially complies with rule regarding waiver of right to counsel "when any failure to fully provide admonishments does not prejudice defendant because either: the absence of a detail from the admonishments did not impede defendant from giving a knowing and intelligent waiver; or defendant possessed a degree of knowledge or sophistication that excused the lack of admonition[]"

    ¶ 39 Y–STR testing examines the Y chromosome that is passed from father to son. People v. Zapata, 2014 IL App (2d) 120825, ¶ 11, 380 Ill.Dec. 646, 8 N.E.3d 1188 ; People v. Barker, 403 Ill.App.3d, 515, 527–28, 342 Ill.Dec. 746, 932 N.E.2d 1207 (2010) (citing and quoting Jules Epstein, “Genetic Surveillance”—The Bogeyman Response to Familial DNA Investigations,7D, 2009 U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol'y, 141, 148 ). Y–STRs are short repeats found solely in the male-specific Y chromosome that code for male sex determination, spermatogenesis, and other male-related functions.

  4. People v. Stoecker

    2013 Ill. App. 3d 110300 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    Therefore, defendant has established a prima facie case for postconviction DNA testing. Additionally, the requested test, Y-STR testing, was unavailable at the time of defendant's trial. See People v. Barker, 403 Ill. App. 3d 515 (2010). Therefore, the issue in this case is whether the requested Y-STR testing had the scientific potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence materially relevant to defendant's assertion of actual innocence. ¶ 26 Here, the stain on Humble's pants was a mix of Humble's blood and her unknown assailant's semen.

  5. People v. Brown

    2020 Ill. App. 172054 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    (Emphasis added). Defendant then stated, "For example, two DNA testing procedures, RFLP and mitochondrial (mtDNA) methods has [sic] been judicially recognized as generally accepted" by the scientific community, citing People v. Barker, 403 Ill. App. 3d 515 (2010). Barker in fact shows both of these DNA tests were scientifically available at the time of defendant's 2013 trial.

  6. People v. Treece

    2016 Ill. App. 3d 140206 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    ¶ 24 Successive section 116-3 motions are not impermissible. People v. Barker, 403 Ill. App. 3d 515, 522 (2010). However, res judicata will bar a successive section 116-3 motion if the same issue is raised in both motions.

  7. People v. Smith

    2014 Ill. App. 113265 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 14 times

    Here, the State concedes that the gloves and sweatshirt were not previously subjected to DNA testing. ¶ 21 In this respect, we find the case at bar distinguishable from People v. Barker, 403 Ill.App.3d 515, 520–21, 342 Ill.Dec. 746, 932 N.E.2d 1207 (2010), cited by the State, where the evidence which defendant sought to be tested had been subjected to DNA testing at the time of trial. As such, defendant in Barker was subject to section 116–3(a)(2), which requires that defendant show that the requested testing was not available at the time of trial, and not to section 116–3(a)(1), which does not contain such a requirement.

  8. People v. Antoine

    2013 Ill. App. 93141 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)

    Id. ¶ 14 "If a defendant can establish his prima facie case for section 116-3 testing, *** he must then establish that the testing requested was scientifically unavailable at the time of his trial." People v. Barker, 403 Ill. App. 3d 515, 524 (2010); 725 ILCS 5/116-3(a)(2) (West 2002). In his amended and revised section 116-3 motion, defendant requested mitochondrial DNA testing of the materials.

  9. People v. Slover

    2011 Ill. App. 4th 100276 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that the trier of fact executed its function in resolving conflicts between the parties' expert witnesses and that its reliance on the State's expert over the defendant's expert did not render its decision erroneous

    People ex rel. Madigan v. Petco Petroleum Corp., 363 Ill.App.3d 613, 623, 299 Ill.Dec. 333, 841 N.E.2d 1065, 1073 (2006). ¶ 18 Next, citing People v. Barker, 403 Ill.App.3d 515, 524, 342 Ill.Dec. 746, 932 N.E.2d 1207, 1215 (2010), the State asserts defendants forfeited their request to have the guardrail fingerprint run through the ISP's AFIS by including in their section 116–3 motion only a request to have it run through the FBI's IAFIS. In Barker, the trial court denied the defendant's section 116–3 motion for several specific types of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing.

  10. People v. Slover

    2011 Ill. App. 4th 100276 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)

    People ex rel. Madigan v. Petco Petroleum Corp., 363 Ill. App. 3d 613, 623, 841 N.E.2d 1065, 1073 (2006). ¶ 18 Next, citing People v. Barker, 403 Ill. App. 3d 515, 524, 932 N.E.2d 1207, 1215 (2010), the State asserts defendants forfeited their request to have the guardrail fingerprint run through the ISP's AFIS by including in their section 116-3 motion only a request to have it run through the FBI's IAFIS. In Barker, the trial court denied the defendant's section 116-3 motion for several specific types of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing.