People v. Friesland

8 Citing cases

  1. People v. Fields

    322 Ill. App. 3d 1029 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 9 times

    It is "a common courtroom practice" to have uniformed guards present. People v. Friesland, 130 Ill. App.3d 595, 598, 474 N.E.2d 865, 867 (1985), aff'd, 109 Ill.2d 369, 488 N.E.2d 261 (1985). In fact, the United States Supreme Court has stated, "Our society has become inured to the presence of armed guards in most public places," and the Court has noted that human experience suggests that a case-by-case approach is appropriate to determine whether the presence of guards is prejudicial.

  2. People v. Mehelic

    504 N.E.2d 1310 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 6 times

    It is well established that the mental health history of a witness is relevant to his credibility and is a permissible area of impeachment. ( People v. Dace (1983), 114 Ill. App.3d 908, 913, 449 N.E.2d 1031, 1034, aff'd (1984), 104 Ill.2d 96, 470 N.E.2d 993; see also People v. Friesland (1985), 130 Ill. App.3d 595, 596, 474 N.E.2d 865, 866, aff'd (1985), 109 Ill.2d 369, 488 N.E.2d 261.) A thorough examination of a witness' credibility is especially important when that testimony would be determinative of defendant's guilt or innocence. ( People v. Dace (1983), 114 Ill. App.3d 908, 913, 449 N.E.2d 1031, 1034.) It has been held that a neurotic condition may materially affect the accuracy of a witness's testimony. People v. Phipps (1981), 98 Ill. App.3d 413, 416, 424 N.E.2d 727, 729-30.

  3. People v. Peeples

    205 Ill. 2d 480 (Ill. 2002)   Cited 151 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the fact that a sheriff’s deputy escorted the defendant to and from the witness stand and remained standing behind him during his testimony was not inherently prejudicial

    As the Court stated in Holbrook, a juror may reasonably draw a wide range of inferences from the presence of security personnel in the courtroom. Because "[i]t is `a common courtroom practice' to have uniformed guards present" during court proceedings ( People v. Fields, 322 Ill. App. 3d 1029, 1034 (2001), quoting People v. Friesland, 130 Ill. App. 3d 595, 598 (1985)), the "presence of guards at a defendant's trial need not be interpreted as a sign that he is particularly dangerous or culpable" ( Holbrook, 475 U.S. at 569, 89 L. Ed. 2d at 534, 106 S. Ct. at 1346). Our examination of the record leads us to agree with the trial court judge that "no extraordinary measures were adopted" with respect to courtroom security during defendant's trial.

  4. People v. Friesland

    109 Ill. 2d 369 (Ill. 1985)   Cited 72 times
    In People v. Friesland (1985), 109 Ill.2d 369, the court held that waiver applied to the failure of the defendant to assert the issue in a written post-trial motion.

    Defendant appealed to the appellate court contesting the fairness of his trial. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court. ( 130 Ill. App.3d 595.) We granted the defendant's petition for leave to appeal pursuant to our Rule 315 (87 Ill.2d R. 315).

  5. Vala v. Marine Bank

    2015 Ill. App. 4th 150018 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    Defendants also contend the letter was admissible because it addressed Fein's mental condition and credibility. Defendants cite People v. Friesland, 130 Ill. App. 3d 595, 596, 474 N.E.2d 865, 866 (1985), for the proposition that "[i]t is well established in Illinois that evidence of a witness' mental condition is admissible to the extent that it relates to the credibility of the witness' testimony." However, the evidence must be admitted in a proper manner.

  6. People v. Graham

    406 Ill. App. 3d 1183 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 16 times
    Rejecting the defendant's argument on appeal that "the trial court's restitution order should be set aside because the court failed to consider his ability to pay restitution and failed to specify, inter alia, a payment schedule, [when] these objections have been forfeited by the defendant's failure to raise them at his sentencing hearing"

    " Dace, 114 Ill. App. 3d at 915. We note that Dace has repeatedly been limited to its facts (see People v. Plummer, 318 Ill. App. 3d 268, 280 (2000) (noting, "Unlike the testimony of the witness in Dace, [the witness's] testimony was not the only evidence against [the] defendant in the instant case"); People v. Knight, 139 Ill. App. 3d 188, 195 (1985) (noting that in Dace "it was already established that the witness had been involuntarily committed, thus establishing some threshold basis for a belief that such records would be impeaching"); People v. Friesland, 130 Ill. App. 3d 595, 596 (1985) (noting that in Dace, the defendant "was able to show that the witness had been involuntarily committed and adjudged dangerous to others" and "the record demonstrated that Dace's conviction was solely dependent on the evidence offered by the accomplice-witness"), aff'd, 109 Ill. 2d 369 (1985)), but moreover, in Foggy, the supreme court rejected the dissenting justice's "Catch-22" argument, which the Dace court seemingly espoused ( Foggy, 121 Ill. 2d at 349-50, 359-60). The Foggy court indicated that to require the disclosure of privileged records in the absence of a demonstrated need would effectively require disclosure "in every case," and the court declined to adopt that rule.

  7. People v. Foggy

    149 Ill. App. 3d 599 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)   Cited 8 times

    Lacking the three factors, and because "nothing tended to establish that the records sought would be either relevant or helpful to defendant's case," the appellate court in Friesland had found no error in the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for production of the mental health records. People v. Friesland (1985), 130 Ill. App.3d 595, 597, 474 N.E.2d 865, 867. On appeal to the supreme court, however, the substantive issue was not reached.

  8. People v. Velarde

    137 Ill. App. 3d 492 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)   Cited 3 times

    Moreover, the escort of defendant was only a minor security procedure and common courtroom procedure which, on this record, we find did not prejudice the defendant. People v. Friesland (1985), 130 Ill. App.3d 595, 597-98, 474 N.E.2d 865; People v. Shorter (1978), 59 Ill. App.3d 468, 478, 375 N.E.2d 513. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County is affirmed.