Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

James v. Illinois

United States Supreme Court
493 U.S. 307 (1990)


Facts

Darryl James (defendant) was a murder suspect. When the police found James the day after the murder, he was in a beauty parlor getting his hair curled and dyed black. The police took James into custody, and James told the officers that his hair was previously reddish-brown and straight. He stated that he dyed his hair black “to change his appearance.” At a pretrial hearing, the trial court ruled these statements inadmissible as the fruit of a warrantless arrest that violated James’s Fourth Amendment rights. At trial, eyewitnesses for the prosecution identified James as the shooter, testified that the shooter had reddish hair, and testified that they had seen James with reddish hair prior to the shooting. James did not testify. Jewel Henderson, a family friend, testified in James’s defense. Henderson stated that on the day of the shooting, James’s hair was black. The prosecution sought to impeach Henderson’s testimony with James’s statements to the officers when he was arrested. The trial court admitted James’s statements for impeachment purposes. James was convicted. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed, finding that the exclusionary rule did not allow illegally obtained statements to be used for impeaching a defense witness’s testimony. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and reinstated James’s conviction, finding that the impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule applied to Henderson’s testimony. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Kennedy, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.