Skip to content

People v. Richardson, 2020 IL App (4th) 200011-U (Il. App. 2021)

Case (cite)
People v. Richardson, 2020 IL App (4th) 200011-U (Il. App. 2021)
Year
2021
State
Illinois
Type of proceeding
Appellate
Type of claim
Per se conflict of interest
Expert evidence ruling reversing or affirming on appeal:
Admitted
What was the ruling?
Remand
Type of evidence at issue:
Firearms identification
Defense or Prosecution Expert
N/A
Name of expert(s) who were the subject of the ruling
N/A
Summary of reasons for ruling
Court reversed Defendant's conviction for first degree murder and remanded for a new trial because Defendant did not knowingly waive a per se conflict of interest.
The jurisdiction’s standard for expert admissibility at the time – list all that apply: (Frye), (Daubert), (Post-2000 Rule 702), (Other)
N/A
Did lower court hold a hearing
Y
Names of prosecution expert(s) two testified at hearing
Kathryn Doolin, Carolyn Kersting
Names of defense expert(s) who testified at hearing (or None).
N/A
Discussion of 2009 NAS Report (NAS2009) or PCAST report (PCAST)
N
Discussion of error rates / reliability
N
Frye Ruling
N
Limiting testimony ruling
N
Language imposed by court to limit testimony
N/A
Ruling based in prior precedent / judicial notice
N
Daubert ruling emphasizing – which factors – (list 1-5)
N/A
Ruling on qualifications of expert
N
Ruling on 702(a) – the expert will help / assist the jury
N
Ruling on 702(b) – the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data
N
Ruling on 702(c) – the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods
N
Ruling on 702(d) – reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of the case
N

Notes

This was not a ruling on expert testimony; it was a ruling on the per se conflict of interest that Defendant did not intentionally waive. Defense counsel represented a prosectuion witness in unrelated criminal matters. No meaningful discussion of forensic evidence, other than to note that experts testified.