But though we are of opinion that such is the character, policy, and intention of the statute in question, and that for this reason alone the power of the State to make and enforce such a law cannot be doubted, yet we would not wish it to be inferred, by any implication from what we have said, that any legislation of a State to aid and assist the claimant, and which does not directly nor indirectly delay, impede, or frustrate the reclamation of a fugitive, or interfere with the claimant in the prosecution of his other remedies, is necessarily void. Testimony at the post-conviction hearing by Lieutenant Turbin of the Lansing Police Department revealed that at the time of trial the police possessed an FBI report that Moore was in Leavenworth Penitentiary from 1957 to March 4, 1962. It has been urged, in the argument on behalf of the plaintiff in error, that an affirmance of the judgment in this case will conflict with the decision of this court in the case of Prigg v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. The 16-gauge shotgun was admitted into evidence at the trial over the objection of the defense that it was not the murder weapon, that it had no connection with the crime charged, and that it was inadmissible under Illinois law.7 During his closing argument to the jury, the prosecuting attorney stated that the 16-gauge shotgun was not used to kill Zitek,8 but that Moore and his companion, Barbee, were "the kind of people that use shotguns."9. Moore claims that the gun's introduction denied him due process. 52. At the post-conviction hearing, Moore argued, and the claim is presented here, that he was denied a fair trial because six items of evidence, unknown to him at the time of the trial, were not produced and, in fact, were suppressed by the State: A. Coupled with the contradictory statement made by O'Brien (see supra, at 803), the evidence showing that one of the witnesses may not have had an adequate opportunity to observe and that petitioner may have been confused with another person named "Slick" would certainly have been material to the defense's presentation of its case. I shot one in the Lansing on last Wednesday night.”. At 10:55 PM that customer rushed back in with a twelve gauge shot gun and shot him in the heart and killed him. See McGowan, Constitutional Interpretation and Criminal Identification, 12 Wm. He identified a picture of Watts as "the Slick I know."

In Witherspoon, 391 U. S., at 523 in n. 21, the Court stated specifically "Nor, finally, does today's holding render invalid the conviction, as opposed to the sentence, in this or any other case" (emphasis in original). G. The Ponderosa bartender, Joyce, testified that Sanders and Fair were in that tavern on April 27; that Moore was there at the same time; and that he arranged with Fair for Fair to give Moore and his companion a ride.

I find myself in complete agreement with Justice Schaeffer's dissent in the Illinois Supreme Court: Petitioner also urges that the failure of the prosecution to disclose the information concerning where the eyewitness Powell was sitting when he allegedly saw petitioner is another instance of suppression of evidence in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. I. . The prosecutor, however, has no recollection that Sanders' statement was in the file. Moore's appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois was held in abeyance while he petitioned the trial court for post-conviction relief. D. A second in-court identification of Moore as the man who killed Zitek was made by the customer Powell. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Each witness (Hill, Powell, Fair) who had given a statement admitted doing so and the statement was immediately tendered.

It neither interrupts, delays, or impedes the right of the master to immediate possession.

Upon these grounds, we are of opinion that the act of Illinois, upon which this indictment is founded, is constitutional, and therefore affirm the judgment. 3. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. The first and third issues respectively focus on the application of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968). In summary, the background presence of the elusive "Slick," while somewhat confusing, is at most an insignificant factor. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION DIVISION _____ WILEY MOORE, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Madison County. "Slick" was not there, but Jones, the tavern's operator, said that he could identify "Slick." 4. Now five of the concealed items of exonerating evidence involved Virgle Sanders.

Abs. Moreover, the very fact that petitioner made his motion for extensive discovery placed the prosecution on notice that the defense wished to see all statements by any witness that might be exculpatory. Moore contends that he and defense counsel were not advised of this remark of Sanders until after the trial had concluded. He made no attempt to communicate his information to the prosecutor or to remind him about the evidence. Really the voluntary confession of this man Slick that he killed the bartender. 306, 14 How. & Mary L. Rev. This case has been cited by these opinions: CourtListener is a project of Free 1. This court held, in Fox v. The State of Ohio, (5 How. (19 Dec, 2001) 19 Dec, 2001 The club's bartender testified to the same effect. Footnote 6 of the Court's opinion implies that during the trial the prosecution turned over Mayer's diagram to defense counsel.
They continued in their profanity and, shortly, Zitek ejected them. He could not plead the punishment by one in bar to a conviction by the other; consequently, this court has decided, in the case of Fox v. The State of Ohio, (5 How.

It prescribes a rule of conduct for the citizens of Illinois. It has been urged that this act is void, as it subjects the delinquent to a double punishment for a single offence. 560,) that Congress, in the proper exercise of its authority, may punish the same act as an offence against the United States.

324. Moore v. Illinois. Two days later in the nearby Tavern a man known only by the nickname Slick bragged that he had shot the bartender in Lansing. 410,) that a person might be punished under a law of the State for passing counterfeit coin, although the same offence was punishable under the act of Congress, and, consequently, that the conviction and punishment under the State law would be no bar to a prosecution under the law of Congress. A fully loaded sawed-off 16-gauge shotgun was in the car.1 The shotgun was introduced in evidence at Moore's trial.2 The State conceded that the gun so introduced was not the murder weapon, and that the State's ballistics technician, if called, would testify that the waddings taken from Zitek's body came, in his opinion, from a 12-gauge shotgun shell. Thomas J. Immel, Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, argued the cause for respondent. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. Cardplayer Powell was placed on the southwest side.