Taylor v. Illinois
United States Supreme Court
484 U.S. 400, 108 S.Ct. 646, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988)
- Written by Sarah Venti, JD
Facts
Taylor (defendant) was convicted by a jury of attempting to murder a man during a street fight. In response to the prosecution’s discovery motion requesting a list of Taylor’s witnesses, the defense identified two sisters, who testified on Taylor’s behalf, and two men, who did not end up testifying at trial. On the second day of trial, defense counsel made an oral motion to amend his answer to discovery to include two more witnesses. He explained that he had just learned about the two additional witnesses and that they had seen the entire incident. After being questioned by the police however, defense counsel conceded that Taylor had told him about the two additional witnesses but he had been unable to locate them. Concerned that the witnesses had not really observed the incident, the judge heard the testimony of one of the witnesses outside the presence of the jury. The testimony was not at all consistent with defense counsel’s representation and he had not witnessed the incident firsthand. The judge suspected that defense counsel deliberately violated the rules, based on similar tactics in prior cases, and that the witnesses had not been truthful. Therefore, the trial judge decided that the seriousness of the discovery violation warranted the exclusion of the testimony. The court of appeals affirmed Taylor’s conviction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
