From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Barker

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. Second Division
Dec 13, 1966
78 Ill. App. 2d 298 (Ill. App. Ct. 1966)

Summary

In Barker (supra), the court held that the rule that a defendant is entitled to examine statements of a witness in the possession of the prosecution to discover inconsistencies for impeachment purposes did not go so far as to require the police department to produce personnel records.

Summary of this case from People v. Norman

Opinion

Gen. No. 51,278. (Abstract of Decision.)

December 13, 1966.

Writ of error to the Criminal Court of Cook County; the Hon. ERVIN J. HASTEN, Judge, presiding.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Ronald N. Mora, of Chicago (Stuart B. Scudder, of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel P. Ward, State's Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James Veldman, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.


Not to be published in full.


Summaries of

People v. Barker

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. Second Division
Dec 13, 1966
78 Ill. App. 2d 298 (Ill. App. Ct. 1966)

In Barker (supra), the court held that the rule that a defendant is entitled to examine statements of a witness in the possession of the prosecution to discover inconsistencies for impeachment purposes did not go so far as to require the police department to produce personnel records.

Summary of this case from People v. Norman
Case details for

People v. Barker

Case Details

Full title:People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Emanuel Barker, Appellant

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. Second Division

Date published: Dec 13, 1966

Citations

78 Ill. App. 2d 298 (Ill. App. Ct. 1966)
223 N.E.2d 190

Citing Cases

People v. Norman

Research by the court of case law in other jurisdictions discloses a paucity of cases dealing with this issue…