People v. Reed

184 Citing cases

  1. People v. Foster

    2022 Ill. App. 2d 200098 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 9 times

    Defendant bears the burden of establishing that his jury waiver was invalid. People v. Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶ 7.

  2. People v. Foster

    2021 Ill. App. 2d 200098 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    Defendant bears the burden of establishing that his jury waiver was invalid. People v. Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶ 7.

  3. People v. McMath

    2023 Ill. App. 221177 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    [Citation.] Consequently, the effectiveness of a defendant's waiver depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case." People v. Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶ 7 (citing People v. Bannister, 232 Ill.2d 52, 66 (2008)).

  4. People v. Wilson

    2019 Ill. App. 162839 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    A defendant may waive this right, but the waiver must be made knowingly and understandingly in open court. People v. Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶ 7 (citing 725 ILCS 5/103-6 (West 2012)). A signed jury waiver is evidence that a defendant's waiver was made knowingly.

  5. People v. Urrutia

    2019 Ill. App. 162915 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Although a defendant may waive this right, the waiver must be made knowingly and understandingly in open court. People v. Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶ 7; see 725 ILCS 5/103-6 (West 2012).¶ 15 The trial court need not give any specific admonishment or advice before accepting a jury waiver.

  6. People v. Galvez-Zelaya

    2019 Ill. App. 161719 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    ¶ 12 Initially, defendant acknowledges that he failed to preserve the error because he neither objected during trial nor raised the issue in his posttrial motion. See People v. Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶ 6. However, we may reach an unpreserved error as plain error where either (1) the evidence is closely balanced, or (2) the error is of such magnitude that defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

  7. People v. Richardson

    2018 Ill. App. 153153 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    ¶ 28 The "crucial determination" is whether the defendant understood his case would be decided by a judge and not a jury. People v. Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶ 7; see also Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d at 69. Here, the court began by asking defendant if that was his signature on the written jury waiver and stated that defendant's signature on that document indicated that he wanted to waive his right to a jury trial and "submit your case to me for a bench trial."

  8. People v. Zaplatich

    2018 Ill. App. 160573 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    A defendant may waive this right, but the waiver must be made knowingly and understandingly in open court. People v. Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶ 7 (citing 725 ILCS5/103-6 (West 2014)).

  9. People v. Liggins

    2018 Ill. App. 153463 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    However, "the rules of waiver and forfeiture are also applicable to the State." People v. Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶ 13. "By failing to timely argue that a defendant has forfeited an issue, the State waives the issue of forfeiture."

  10. People v. Czarnecki

    2018 Ill. App. 160732 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    He argues that the assessments therefore do not compensate the State for prosecuting a particular defendant, and thus, they constitute fines rather than fees. ¶ 13 This court has repeatedly found that the $2 State's Attorney Records Automation fee and the $2 Public Defender Records Automation fee are compensatory in nature because they reimburse the State for its expenses related to maintaining its automated record-keeping systems. People v. Reed, 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶¶ 16-17; People v. Green, 2016 IL App (1st) 134011, ¶ 46 (Public Defender assessment is a fee, not a fine); People v. Bowen, 2015 IL App (1st) 132046, ¶¶ 62-65; People v. Rogers, 2014 IL App (4th) 121088, ¶ 30 (State's Attorney assessment is a fee, not a fine). In Reed, we explained that the State's Attorney's Office would have utilized its automated record-keeping systems in prosecuting the defendant when it filed charges with the clerk's office and made copies of discovery that were tendered to the defense.