taylor
illinois
argued
october
decided
january
well
advance
petitioner
trial
attempted
murder
prosecutor
filed
discovery
motion
requesting
list
defense
witnesses
petitioner
answer
failed
list
one
wormley
amended
answer
submitted
accepted
first
day
trial
identifying
two
witnesses
never
called
testify
second
day
trial
prosecution
two
principal
witnesses
completed
testimony
petitioner
counsel
made
oral
motion
amend
discovery
answer
include
wormley
counsel
explained
wormley
probably
seen
entire
incident
led
indictment
although
petitioner
told
counsel
wormley
earlier
counsel
unable
locate
wormley
subsequent
voir
dire
examination
wormley
testified
witness
incident
earlier
seen
victim
brother
carrying
guns
threatening
petitioner
happened
run
petitioner
warned
watch
wormley
acknowledged
first
met
petitioner
two
years
incident
question
defense
counsel
visited
home
week
trial
began
sanction
failure
identify
wormley
discovery
answer
trial
judge
refused
allow
wormley
testify
jury
judge
explained
petitioner
counsel
committed
blatant
willful
violation
discovery
rules
judge
doubted
veracity
wormley
testimony
illinois
appellate
affirmed
petitioner
conviction
held
compulsory
process
clause
sixth
amendment
may
appropriate
case
violated
imposition
discovery
sanction
entirely
excludes
testimony
material
defense
witness
clause
merely
guarantee
accused
shall
power
subpoena
witnesses
confers
accused
fundamental
right
present
witnesses
defense
pp
however
compulsory
process
clause
create
absolute
bar
preclusion
testimony
defense
witness
sanction
violating
discovery
rule
although
trial
may
ignore
fundamental
character
defendant
right
offer
testimony
witnesses
favor
mere
invocation
right
automatically
invariably
outweigh
countervailing
public
interests
discovery
violations
willful
motivated
desire
obtain
tactical
advantage
conceal
plan
present
fabricated
testimony
entirely
appropriate
exclude
witnesses
testimony
regardless
whether
less
drastic
sanctions
might
available
adequate
merited
pp
exclusion
wormley
testimony
constitute
constitutional
error
pp
fact
voir
dire
examination
wormley
may
adequately
protected
prosecution
prejudice
resulting
surprise
render
imposition
preclusion
sanction
unnecessarily
harsh
record
raises
strong
inferences
petitioner
counsel
deliberately
seeking
tactical
advantage
failing
list
wormley
witness
witnesses
found
really
thus
case
fits
category
willful
misconduct
severe
sanction
preclusion
justified
order
protect
integrity
judicial
process
pp
unfair
hold
petitioner
responsible
lawyer
misconduct
lawyer
necessarily
full
authority
manage
conduct
trial
client
must
accept
consequences
lawyer
trial
decisions
pp
stevens
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
white
scalia
joined
brennan
filed
dissenting
opinion
marshall
blackmun
joined
post
blackmun
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
richard
cunningham
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
paul
biebel
robert
isaacson
emily
eisner
michael
shabat
argued
cause
respondent
brief
neil
hartigan
attorney
general
illinois
jill
deputy
attorney
general
roma
stewart
solicitor
general
joan
fickinger
assistant
attorney
general
solicitor
general
fried
assistant
attorney
general
weld
deputy
solicitor
general
bryson
paul
larkin
sidney
glazer
filed
brief
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
sanction
failing
identify
defense
witness
response
pretrial
discovery
request
illinois
trial
judge
refused
allow
undisclosed
witness
testify
question
presented
whether
refusal
violated
petitioner
constitutional
right
obtain
testimony
favorable
witnesses
hold
sanction
absolutely
prohibited
compulsory
process
clause
sixth
amendment
find
constitutional
error
specific
facts
case
jury
convicted
petitioner
attempting
murder
jack
bridges
street
fight
south
side
chicago
august
conviction
supported
testimony
bridges
brother
three
witnesses
described
argument
bridges
young
man
named
derrick
travis
violent
encounter
occurred
hour
later
several
friends
travis
including
petitioner
one
hand
bridges
belatedly
aided
brother
incident
witnessed
bystanders
undisputed
least
three
members
group
included
travis
petitioner
carrying
pipes
clubs
used
beat
bridges
prosecution
witnesses
also
testified
petitioner
gun
shot
bridges
back
attempted
flee
bridges
fell
petitioner
pointed
gun
bridges
head
weapon
misfired
two
sisters
friends
petitioner
testified
behalf
many
respects
version
incident
consistent
prosecution
case
testified
bridges
brother
rather
petitioner
possessed
firearm
fired
group
hitting
brother
mistake
witnesses
testified
defense
well
advance
trial
prosecutor
filed
discovery
motion
requesting
list
defense
witnesses
original
response
petitioner
attorney
identified
two
sisters
later
testified
two
men
testify
first
day
trial
defense
counsel
allowed
amend
answer
adding
names
derrick
travis
chicago
police
officer
neither
actually
testified
second
day
trial
prosecution
two
principal
witnesses
completed
testimony
defense
counsel
made
oral
motion
amend
answer
discovery
include
two
witnesses
alfred
wormley
pam
berkhalter
support
motion
counsel
represented
informed
probably
seen
entire
incident
response
inquiry
defendant
failure
tell
two
witnesses
earlier
counsel
acknowledged
defendant
done
represented
unable
locate
wormley
noting
witnesses
names
supplied
even
addresses
unknown
trial
judge
directed
counsel
bring
next
day
time
decide
whether
testify
judge
indicated
concerned
possibility
witnesses
found
really
next
morning
wormley
appeared
defense
counsel
colloquy
consequences
violation
discovery
rules
counsel
permitted
make
offer
proof
form
wormley
testimony
outside
presence
jury
developed
wormley
witness
incident
testified
prior
incident
saw
jack
bridges
brother
two
guns
blanket
heard
say
ray
petitioner
people
way
home
happened
run
ray
warned
watch
got
weapons
wormley
acknowledged
first
met
defendant
four
months
ago
two
years
incident
also
acknowledged
defense
counsel
visited
home
wednesday
week
trial
began
thus
testimony
rather
dramatically
contradicted
defense
counsel
representations
trial
hearing
wormley
testify
trial
judge
concluded
appropriate
sanction
discovery
violation
exclude
testimony
judge
explained
right
going
deny
wormley
opportunity
testify
going
testify
find
blatent
sic
violation
discovery
rules
willful
violation
rules
also
feel
defense
attorneys
violating
discovery
courtroom
last
three
four
cases
blatantly
going
put
stop
one
way
whatever
value
jury
trial
great
deal
doubt
mind
veracity
young
man
testified
whether
eyewitness
scene
sees
guns
wrapped
know
ray
stops
ray
rate
wormley
going
testify
witness
courtroom
app
petitioner
makes
two
arguments
first
contends
sixth
amendment
bars
ever
ordering
preclusion
defense
evidence
sanction
violating
discovery
rule
alternatively
contends
even
right
present
witnesses
absolute
facts
case
preclusion
wormley
testimony
constitutional
error
addressing
contentions
consider
state
argument
compulsory
process
clause
sixth
amendment
merely
guarantee
accused
shall
power
subpoena
witnesses
simply
apply
rulings
admissibility
evidence
ii
state
view
compulsory
process
clause
concerns
even
raised
authorizing
preclusion
discovery
sanction
application
illinois
rule
case
state
argument
supported
plain
language
clause
see
supra
historical
evidence
intended
provide
defendants
subpoena
power
lacked
common
law
scholarly
comment
brief
excerpt
legislative
history
clause
however
consistently
given
clause
broader
reading
reflected
contemporaneous
state
constitutional
provisions
noted
last
term
ur
cases
establish
minimum
criminal
defendants
right
government
assistance
compelling
attendance
favorable
witnesses
trial
right
put
jury
evidence
might
influence
determination
guilt
pennsylvania
ritchie
rights
fundamental
accused
present
witnesses
defense
see
chambers
mississippi
indeed
right
essential
attribute
adversary
system
elected
employ
adversary
system
criminal
justice
parties
contest
issues
law
need
develop
relevant
facts
adversary
system
fundamental
comprehensive
ends
criminal
justice
defeated
judgments
founded
partial
speculative
presentation
facts
integrity
judicial
system
public
confidence
system
depend
full
disclosure
facts
within
framework
rules
evidence
ensure
justice
done
imperative
function
courts
compulsory
process
available
production
evidence
needed
either
prosecution
defense
nixon
right
offer
testimony
witnesses
compel
attendance
necessary
plain
terms
right
present
defense
right
present
defendant
version
facts
well
prosecution
jury
may
decide
truth
lies
accused
right
confront
prosecution
witnesses
purpose
challenging
testimony
right
present
witnesses
establish
defense
right
fundamental
element
due
process
law
washington
texas
iii
petitioner
claim
sixth
amendment
creates
absolute
bar
preclusion
testimony
surprise
witness
extreme
unacceptable
state
position
amendment
simply
irrelevant
accused
unfettered
right
offer
testimony
incompetent
privileged
otherwise
inadmissible
standard
rules
evidence
compulsory
process
clause
provides
effective
weapon
weapon
used
irresponsibly
significant
difference
compulsory
process
clause
weapon
rights
protected
sixth
amendment
availability
dependent
entirely
defendant
initiative
sixth
amendment
rights
arise
automatically
initiation
adversary
process
action
defendant
necessary
make
active
case
rights
shield
defendant
potential
prosecutorial
abuses
right
compel
presence
present
testimony
witnesses
provides
defendant
sword
may
employed
rebut
prosecution
case
decision
whether
employ
particular
case
rests
solely
defendant
nature
right
requires
effective
use
preceded
deliberate
planning
affirmative
conduct
principle
undergirds
defendant
right
present
exculpatory
evidence
also
source
essential
limitations
right
adversary
process
function
effectively
without
adherence
rules
procedure
govern
orderly
presentation
facts
arguments
provide
party
fair
opportunity
assemble
submit
evidence
contradict
explain
opponent
case
trial
process
shambles
either
party
absolute
right
control
time
content
witnesses
testimony
neither
may
insist
right
interrupt
opposing
party
case
obviously
absolute
right
interrupt
deliberations
jury
present
newly
discovered
evidence
state
interest
orderly
conduct
criminal
trial
sufficient
justify
imposition
enforcement
firm
though
always
inflexible
rules
relating
identification
presentation
evidence
defendant
right
compulsory
process
designed
vindicate
principle
ends
criminal
justice
defeated
judgments
founded
partial
speculative
presentation
facts
nixon
rules
provide
pretrial
discovery
opponent
witnesses
serve
high
purpose
discovery
like
minimizes
risk
judgment
predicated
incomplete
misleading
even
deliberately
fabricated
testimony
state
interest
protecting
defense
merely
one
component
broader
public
interest
full
truthful
disclosure
critical
facts
vindicate
interest
held
even
defendant
may
testify
without
subjected
brown
moreover
nobles
upheld
order
excluding
testimony
expert
witness
tendered
defendant
refused
permit
discovery
highly
relevant
report
writing
justice
powell
explained
preclusion
sanction
entirely
proper
method
assuring
compliance
order
respondent
argument
ruling
deprived
sixth
amendment
rights
compulsory
process
misconceives
issue
district
bar
investigator
testimony
cf
washington
texas
merely
prevented
respondent
presenting
jury
partial
view
credibility
issue
adducing
investigator
testimony
thereafter
refusing
disclose
contemporaneous
report
might
offer
critical
insights
sixth
amendment
confer
right
present
testimony
free
legitimate
demands
adversarial
system
one
invoke
sixth
amendment
justification
presenting
might
deciding
within
discretion
assure
jury
hear
full
testimony
investigator
rather
truncated
portion
favorable
respondent
think
artificial
indeed
deprive
power
effectuate
judgment
find
constitutional
significance
fact
instance
able
exclude
testimony
advance
rather
receive
evidence
thereafter
charge
jury
disregard
respondent
counsel
refused
said
produce
report
emphasis
added
may
well
true
alternative
sanctions
adequate
appropriate
cases
equally
clear
less
effective
preclusion
sanction
instances
perpetuate
rather
limit
prejudice
state
harm
adversary
process
one
purposes
discovery
rule
minimize
risk
fabricated
testimony
believed
defendants
willing
fabricate
defense
may
also
willing
fabricate
excuses
failing
comply
discovery
requirement
risk
contempt
violation
may
seem
trivial
defendant
facing
threat
imprisonment
term
years
dishonest
client
mislead
honest
attorney
occasions
attorney
assumes
duty
loyalty
client
outweighs
elementary
obligations
presume
evidence
discovered
trial
affected
outcome
equally
reasonable
presume
something
suspect
defense
witness
identified
hour
passed
pattern
discovery
violations
explicable
assumption
violations
designed
conceal
plan
present
fabricated
testimony
entirely
appropriate
exclude
tainted
evidence
regardless
whether
sanctions
also
merited
order
reject
petitioner
argument
preclusion
never
permissible
sanction
discovery
violation
neither
necessary
appropriate
us
attempt
draft
comprehensive
set
standards
guide
exercise
discretion
every
possible
case
elementary
course
trial
may
ignore
fundamental
character
defendant
right
offer
testimony
witnesses
favor
mere
invocation
right
automatically
invariably
outweigh
countervailing
public
interests
integrity
adversary
process
depends
presentation
reliable
evidence
rejection
unreliable
evidence
interest
fair
efficient
administration
justice
potential
prejudice
function
trial
process
must
also
weigh
balance
trial
judge
may
certainly
insist
explanation
party
failure
comply
request
identify
witnesses
advance
trial
explanation
reveals
omission
willful
motivated
desire
obtain
tactical
advantage
minimize
effectiveness
ability
adduce
rebuttal
evidence
entirely
consistent
purposes
compulsory
process
clause
simply
exclude
witness
testimony
cf
nobles
simplicity
compliance
discovery
rule
also
relevant
noted
compulsory
process
clause
invoked
without
prior
planning
affirmative
conduct
defendant
lawyers
accustomed
meeting
deadlines
routine
preparation
involves
location
interrogation
potential
witnesses
serving
subpoenas
whose
testimony
offered
trial
burden
identifying
advance
trial
adds
little
routine
demands
trial
preparation
demean
high
purpose
compulsory
process
clause
construe
encompassing
absolute
right
automatic
continuance
mistrial
allow
presumptively
perjured
testimony
presented
jury
reject
petitioner
argument
preclusion
sanction
never
appropriate
matter
serious
defendant
discovery
violation
may
iv
petitioner
argues
preclusion
sanction
unnecessarily
harsh
case
voir
dire
examination
wormley
adequately
protected
prosecution
possible
prejudice
resulting
surprise
petitioner
also
contends
unfair
visit
sins
lawyer
upon
client
neither
argument
merit
stake
possible
prejudice
prosecution
also
concerned
impact
kind
conduct
integrity
judicial
process
trial
judge
found
discovery
violation
case
willful
blatant
view
fact
petitioner
counsel
actually
interviewed
wormley
week
trial
began
fact
amended
answer
discovery
first
day
trial
without
identifying
wormley
identify
two
actual
eyewitnesses
place
stand
inference
deliberately
seeking
tactical
advantage
inescapable
regardless
whether
prejudice
prosecution
avoided
particular
case
plain
case
fits
category
willful
misconduct
severest
sanction
appropriate
well
prosecutor
vital
interest
protecting
trial
process
pollution
perjured
testimony
evidentiary
rules
apply
categories
inadmissible
evidence
ranging
hearsay
fruits
illegal
searches
may
properly
enforced
even
though
particular
testimony
offered
prejudicial
pretrial
conduct
revealed
record
case
gives
rise
sufficiently
strong
inference
witnesses
found
really
justify
sanction
preclusion
argument
client
held
responsible
lawyer
misconduct
strikes
heart
relationship
although
basic
rights
attorney
waive
without
fully
informed
publicly
acknowledged
consent
client
lawyer
must
full
authority
manage
conduct
trial
adversary
process
function
effectively
every
tactical
decision
required
client
approval
moreover
given
protections
afforded
privilege
fact
extreme
cases
may
involve
unscrupulous
conduct
client
lawyer
highly
impracticable
require
investigation
relative
responsibilities
applying
sanction
preclusion
responding
discovery
client
duty
candid
forthcoming
lawyer
lawyer
responds
speaks
client
putting
one
side
exceptional
cases
counsel
ineffective
client
must
accept
consequences
lawyer
decision
forgo
decide
put
certain
witnesses
stand
decide
disclose
identity
certain
witnesses
advance
trial
case
petitioner
greater
right
disavow
lawyer
decision
conceal
wormley
identity
trial
commenced
disavow
decision
refrain
adducing
testimony
eyewitnesses
identified
answer
discovery
whenever
lawyer
makes
use
sword
provided
compulsory
process
clause
risk
may
wound
client
judgment
illinois
appellate
affirmed
footnotes
illinois
rule
provides
pertinent
part
subject
constitutional
limitations
within
reasonable
time
filing
written
motion
state
defense
counsel
shall
inform
state
defenses
intends
make
hearing
trial
shall
furnish
state
following
material
information
within
possession
control
names
last
known
addresses
persons
intends
call
witnesses
together
relevant
written
recorded
statements
including
memoranda
reporting
summarizing
oral
statements
record
prior
criminal
convictions
known
emphasis
added
two
men
earl
travis
brother
derrick
travis
luther
taylor
petitioner
brother
identified
prosecution
witnesses
participants
street
fight
direct
testimony
witnesses
honor
called
state
informed
additional
witnesses
probably
fact
see
entire
incident
time
ask
amend
answer
include
two
additional
witnesses
van
one
guy
named
alfred
wrdely
defendant
excuse
van
whose
address
going
see
locate
tonight
pam
berkhalter
app
yeah
defendant
defendant
telling
pam
berkhalter
telling
alfred
wrdely
tell
sometime
ago
got
obligation
tell
van
correct
judge
fact
told
alfred
sometime
ago
problem
locate
alfred
sorts
people
scene
people
disclosed
bring
witnesses
last
moment
always
allegation
thought
process
witnesses
found
really
problem
types
cases
put
sheet
long
time
ago
rate
worry
tomorrow
record
explain
pam
berkhalter
appear
anything
learn
standing
crowd
well
jack
blanket
two
pistols
gave
anything
say
time
recall
well
saying
going
people
say
ray
people
anything
time
time
left
way
home
happened
run
ray
told
happening
watch
got
weapons
state
also
argues
decline
exercise
jurisdiction
petitioner
sixth
amendment
claim
inadequately
presented
state
respondent
points
petitioner
specifically
articulate
claim
based
compulsory
process
clause
filed
petition
rehearing
illinois
appellate
moreover
trial
petitioner
merely
argued
trial
erred
letting
witness
testify
appeal
however
petitioner
asserted
error
constitutional
trial
judge
abused
discretion
denied
petitioner
due
process
excluding
material
defense
witness
testifying
sanction
discovery
violation
brief
argument
appellant
app
although
petitioner
expressly
asserted
due
process
violation
reliance
sixth
amendment
clear
cited
relied
upon
quotation
illinois
appellate
decision
two
compulsory
process
clause
cases
washington
texas
chambers
mississippi
decision
petitioner
quoted
people
rayford
app
also
compulsory
process
clause
case
rayford
asserted
use
preclusion
sanction
criminal
cases
limited
extreme
situations
criminal
cases
due
process
requires
defendant
permitted
offer
testimony
witnesses
defense
emphasis
added
citing
washington
supra
generic
reference
fourteenth
amendment
sufficient
preserve
constitutional
claim
based
unidentified
provision
bill
rights
case
authority
cited
petitioner
manner
fundamental
right
issue
described
understood
illinois
courts
make
appropriate
conclude
constitutional
question
sufficiently
well
presented
state
courts
support
jurisdiction
see
clinton
right
present
defense
emergent
constitutional
guarantee
criminal
trials
ind
rev
wigmore
evidence
pp
mcnaughton
rev
burke
moved
amend
proposition
manner
leave
power
accused
put
trial
next
session
provided
made
appear
evidence
witnesses
process
granted
served
material
defence
hartley
said
securing
right
compulsory
process
government
remainder
must
lie
discretion
smith
south
carolina
thought
regulation
come
properly
part
judicial
system
question
burke
motion
taken
lost
ayes
noes
annals
cong
particulars
varied
state
state
provisions
reflected
common
principle
three
emphasized
right
present
evidence
guaranteeing
accused
right
call
evidence
favour
two
emphasized
subpoena
power
giving
defendant
right
produce
proofs
may
favorable
north
carolina
combined
right
put
defense
right
confrontation
guaranteeing
right
confront
accusers
witnesses
testimony
delaware
emphasized
defendant
interest
sworn
testimony
giving
right
examine
evidence
oath
favour
new
jersey
opted
principle
equality
parties
criminals
shall
admitted
privileges
witnesses
counsel
prosecutors
shall
entitled
maryland
consolidated
several
interests
guaranteeing
defendant
right
examine
witnesses
oath
process
witnesses
state
provisions
originated
english
statutes
colonial
enactments
original
regardless
reflected
principle
defendant
must
meaningful
opportunity
least
advantageous
possessed
prosecution
establish
essential
elements
case
pressed
principle
vigorously
framers
federal
bill
rights
included
sixth
amendment
distinctive
formulation
westen
compulsory
process
clause
rev
footnotes
omitted
one
commentator
noted
defendant
rights
informed
charges
receive
speedy
public
trial
tried
jury
assisted
counsel
confronted
adverse
witnesses
designed
restrain
prosecution
regulating
procedures
presents
case
accused
apply
every
case
whether
defendant
seeks
rebut
case
present
case
compulsory
process
hand
comes
play
close
prosecution
case
operates
exclusively
defendant
initiative
provides
affirmative
aid
presenting
defense
exercise
right
present
witnesses
accused
required
state
must
comply
established
rules
procedure
evidence
designed
assure
fairness
reliability
ascertainment
guilt
innocence
chambers
mississippi
rules
use
large
growing
number
based
proposition
ends
justice
best
served
system
liberal
discovery
gives
parties
maximum
possible
amount
information
prepare
cases
thereby
reduces
possibility
surprise
trial
see
brennan
criminal
prosecution
sporting
event
quest
truth
american
bar
association
project
standards
criminal
justice
discovery
procedure
trial
approved
draft
goldstein
state
accused
balance
advantage
criminal
procedure
yale
growth
discovery
devices
salutary
development
increasing
evidence
available
parties
enhances
fairness
adversary
system
wardius
oregon
given
ease
alibi
fabricated
state
interest
protecting
defense
obvious
legitimate
reflecting
interest
provisions
dating
least
existence
substantial
number
adversary
system
trial
hardly
end
yet
poker
game
players
enjoy
absolute
right
always
conceal
cards
played
find
ample
room
system
least
far
due
process
concerned
instant
florida
rule
designed
enhance
search
truth
criminal
trial
insuring
defendant
state
ample
opportunity
investigate
certain
facts
crucial
determination
guilt
innocence
williams
florida
footnotes
omitted
lloyd
gill
motion
new
trial
based
newly
discovered
evidence
may
granted
unless
facts
discovered
nature
probably
change
result
new
trial
granted
discovered
since
trial
exercise
due
diligence
discovered
earlier
merely
cumulative
impeaching
ragnar
benson
kassab
ourts
indulge
presumptions
favor
validity
verdict
rowlik
greenfield
supp
ed
ew
trials
allowed
simply
verdict
losing
party
come
upon
witness
information
theretofore
unknown
attorney
see
fendler
goldsmith
giving
consideration
effectiveness
less
severe
sanctions
impact
preclusion
evidence
trial
outcome
case
extent
prosecutorial
surprise
prejudice
whether
violation
willful
may
cases
defendant
legitimate
objections
disclosing
identity
potential
witness
see
note
preclusion
sanction
violation
constitutional
right
present
defense
yale
objections
however
raised
advance
trial
response
discovery
request
parties
unable
agree
resolution
presented
federal
rules
criminal
procedure
rules
adopted
party
may
request
protective
order
cause
objecting
discovery
request
see
fed
rule
crim
proc
sup
rule
case
issue
concerning
validity
discovery
requirement
petitioner
duty
comply
also
indication
petitioner
ever
objected
prosecution
discovery
request
case
us
rule
way
affected
petitioner
crucial
decision
call
alibi
witnesses
added
legitimate
pressures
leading
course
action
rule
compelled
petitioner
accelerate
timing
disclosure
forcing
divulge
earlier
date
information
petitioner
beginning
planned
divulge
trial
nothing
fifth
amendment
privilege
entitles
defendant
matter
constitutional
right
await
end
state
case
announcing
nature
defense
entitles
await
jury
verdict
state
deciding
whether
take
stand
williams
florida
trial
judge
also
expressed
concern
discovery
violations
trials
violations
involved
attorney
otherwise
contributed
concern
trustworthiness
wormley
testimony
relevant
unrelated
discovery
violations
litigation
however
normally
provide
proper
basis
curtailing
defendant
constitutional
right
present
complete
defense
noted
illinois
sanction
preclusion
reserved
extreme
cases
people
rayford
illinois
appellate
explained
exclusion
evidence
drastic
measure
rule
civil
cases
limits
application
flagrant
violations
uncooperative
party
demonstrates
deliberate
contumacious
unwarranted
disregard
authority
schwartz
moats
app
department
transportation
mainline
center
app
reasons
restricting
use
exclusion
sanction
extreme
situations
even
compelling
case
criminal
defendants
due
process
requires
defendant
permitted
offer
testimony
witnesses
defense
washington
texas
rights
fundamental
accused
present
witnesses
defense
chambers
mississippi
app
see
brookhart
janis
defendant
constitutional
right
plead
guilty
trial
confront
adversary
witness
waived
counsel
without
defendant
consent
doughty
state
ind
record
must
show
personal
communication
defendant
chooses
relinquish
right
jury
trial
cross
app
waiver
right
present
trial
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
join
dissenting
criminal
discovery
game
integral
quest
truth
fair
adjudication
guilt
innocence
violations
discovery
rules
thus
go
uncorrected
undeterred
without
undermining
truthseeking
process
question
case
however
whether
discovery
rules
enforced
whether
need
correct
deter
discovery
violations
requires
sanction
distorts
truthseeking
process
excluding
material
evidence
innocence
criminal
case
conclude
least
criminal
defendant
personally
responsible
discovery
violation
alternative
sanctions
adequate
correct
deter
discovery
violations
far
superior
arbitrary
disproportionate
penalty
imposed
preclusion
sanction
balancing
test
creates
conflict
interest
every
case
involving
discovery
violation
hold
absent
evidence
defendant
personal
involvement
discovery
violation
compulsory
process
clause
per
se
bars
discovery
sanctions
exclude
criminal
defense
evidence
addressing
merits
pause
explicate
take
implicit
conclusion
defendant
constitutional
claims
sufficiently
well
presented
state
courts
support
jurisdiction
ante
quite
agree
constitutional
claims
waived
appellate
illinois
defendant
appellate
brief
adequately
presented
sixth
amendment
claim
see
analysis
case
essentially
due
process
clause
see
ante
however
explain
conclusion
constitutional
claims
waived
trial
conclude
although
matter
illinois
law
defendant
waived
federal
constitutional
claims
trial
matter
federal
law
waiver
bar
review
legal
challenge
witness
preclusion
defendant
raised
trial
one
sentence
motion
new
trial
stating
erred
letting
witness
defendant
testify
jury
record
appellate
illinois
stated
witness
preclusion
issue
appeal
whether
trial
abused
discretion
excluding
testimony
defense
witness
sanction
violation
discovery
rules
app
appellate
never
addressed
either
compulsory
process
due
process
claims
concerning
witness
preclusion
even
though
briefs
implicitly
presented
former
claim
expressly
asserted
latter
alone
may
warrant
assumption
appellate
implicitly
held
motion
new
trial
stating
erred
preserved
abuse
discretion
claim
waived
constitutional
claims
appellate
illinois
already
reached
holding
identical
case
see
people
douthit
app
douthit
stated
despite
appellate
counsel
excellent
brief
issue
constitutionality
applied
criminal
defendant
portion
rule
rev
stat
ch
par
authorizing
exclusion
evidence
failure
comply
discovery
rule
deem
issue
raised
first
time
appeal
waived
nothing
record
indicate
defense
counsel
ever
raised
constitutional
objection
extensive
inchambers
discussion
summarized
motion
requests
new
trial
solely
ground
erred
ruling
defendant
call
glen
muench
rocky
reed
testify
defendant
state
intoxication
time
commission
alleged
burglary
read
motion
raises
question
whether
trial
abused
discretion
exercising
exclusion
sanction
failure
raise
issue
including
constitutional
issue
written
motion
new
trial
constitutes
waiver
issue
urged
ground
reversal
review
citations
footnotes
omitted
emphasis
added
conclusion
appellate
illinois
deemed
federal
constitutional
claims
waived
matter
state
law
course
mean
waived
matter
federal
law
consistently
held
question
defaults
compliance
state
procedural
rules
preclude
consideration
federal
question
federal
question
henry
mississippi
specifically
well
established
state
possesses
power
disregard
procedural
default
exceptional
cases
state
failure
exercise
power
particular
case
bar
review
williams
georgia
see
also
sullivan
little
hunting
park
henry
supra
illinois
appellate
courts
possess
power
illinois
rule
provides
plain
errors
defects
affecting
substantial
rights
may
noticed
appeal
even
though
brought
attention
trial
courts
frequently
rely
provision
address
discretion
issues
waived
trial
see
jenner
tone
martin
historical
practice
notes
following
ann
ch
citing
appellate
cases
decided
examples
cases
invoking
plain
error
alone
see
also
people
visnack
app
invoking
substantial
rights
exception
despite
waiver
apparently
appellate
declined
exercise
discretion
deemed
waiver
binding
since
williams
georgia
decision
bar
review
free
address
merits
despite
waiver
ii
merits
start
premise
compulsory
process
clause
sixth
amendment
embodies
substantive
right
present
criminal
defense
evidence
jury
see
ante
see
also
pennsylvania
ritchie
although
thus
join
rejecting
state
argument
clause
embodies
right
subpoena
witnesses
agree
assertion
state
argument
supported
plain
language
clause
ante
compulsory
process
clause
provides
criminal
prosecutions
accused
shall
enjoy
right
compulsory
process
obtaining
witnesses
favor
plain
language
supports
state
argument
one
assumes
natural
reading
constitutional
language
least
meaningful
right
subpoena
defense
witnesses
hollow
protection
indeed
government
simply
refuse
allow
subpoenaed
defense
witnesses
testify
recognized
last
years
right
subpoena
witnesses
must
mean
right
subpoena
useful
purpose
thus
necessarily
implies
substantive
limitation
government
power
prevent
witnesses
testifying
right
offer
testimony
witnesses
compel
attendance
necessary
plain
terms
right
present
defense
right
present
defendant
version
facts
well
prosecution
jury
may
decide
truth
lies
washington
texas
emphasis
added
framers
constitution
intend
commit
futile
act
giving
defendant
right
secure
attendance
witnesses
whose
testimony
right
use
compulsory
process
due
process
clauses
thus
require
courts
conduct
searching
substantive
inquiry
whenever
government
seeks
exclude
criminal
defense
evidence
ew
rights
fundamental
accused
present
witnesses
defense
chambers
supra
exclusion
criminal
defense
evidence
undermines
central
truthseeking
aim
criminal
justice
system
see
nixon
deliberately
distorts
record
risk
misleading
jury
convicting
innocent
person
surely
paramount
value
criminal
justice
system
places
acquitting
innocent
see
winship
demands
close
scrutiny
law
preventing
jury
hearing
evidence
favorable
defendant
hand
compulsory
process
clause
invalidate
every
restriction
presentation
evidence
clause
example
require
criminal
courts
admit
evidence
irrelevant
crane
supra
testimony
persons
mentally
infirm
see
washington
texas
supra
evidence
represents
see
nobles
inquiry
required
compulsory
process
clause
sometimes
difficult
course
justify
abandoning
task
altogether
accordingly
conducted
searching
substantive
inquiries
rationales
underlying
every
challenged
exclusion
criminal
defense
evidence
come
date
scrutiny
led
strike
constitutionally
unjustifiable
rules
prevent
whole
categories
defense
witnesses
testifying
basis
priori
categories
presume
unworthy
belief
rule
introducing
testimony
alleged
accomplice
washington
texas
supra
application
hearsay
rule
statements
originally
made
subsequently
offered
trial
circumstances
provided
considerable
assurance
reliability
chambers
supra
exclusion
evidence
bearing
credibility
voluntary
confession
crane
supra
per
se
rule
excluding
posthypnosis
testimony
rock
supra
based
thorough
review
relevant
case
law
defined
standard
governing
constitutional
inquiry
last
term
rock
arkansas
concluding
restrictions
right
present
criminal
defense
evidence
constitutional
accommodate
legitimate
interests
criminal
trial
process
arbitrary
disproportionate
purposes
designed
serve
rock
arkansas
supra
quoting
chambers
supra
question
heart
case
whether
precluding
criminal
defense
witness
testifying
bears
arbitrary
disproportionate
relation
purposes
discovery
least
absent
evidence
defendant
personally
responsible
discovery
violations
question
answered
merely
pointing
discovery
like
compulsory
process
serves
truthseeking
interests
compare
ante
last
deny
utility
discovery
truthseeking
process
see
brennan
criminal
prosecution
sporting
event
quest
truth
aiding
effective
trial
preparation
discovery
helps
develop
full
account
relevant
facts
helps
detect
expose
attempts
falsify
evidence
prevents
factors
surprise
influencing
outcome
expense
merits
case
objectives
accomplished
compliance
discovery
rules
exclusion
material
evidence
discovery
sanctions
serve
objectives
discovery
correcting
adverse
effects
discovery
violations
deterring
future
discovery
violations
occurring
sanctions
excluding
evidence
sufficiently
correct
deter
discovery
violations
reason
resort
sanction
constitutes
conscious
mandatory
distortion
process
whenever
applied
weinstein
difficulties
devising
rules
determining
truth
judicial
trials
colum
rev
use
preclusion
sanction
corrective
measure
measure
addressing
adverse
impact
discovery
violation
might
truthseeking
case
hand
asserted
two
justifications
bars
defendant
introducing
testimony
tested
discovery
see
ante
screens
witnesses
inherently
suspect
disclosed
trial
see
ante
first
justification
bearing
case
defendant
insist
right
introduce
witness
testimony
without
giving
prosecution
opportunity
discovery
concedes
trial
within
authority
requiring
witness
testify
first
presence
jury
concedes
trial
granted
prosecution
continuance
give
sufficient
time
conduct
discovery
concerning
witness
proffered
testimony
see
brief
petitioner
argues
completely
precluded
introducing
testimony
nobles
brown
thus
inapposite
compare
ante
nobles
defendant
sought
impeach
credibility
prosecution
witnesses
testimony
defense
investigator
regarding
statements
witnesses
made
interviews
investigator
trial
ruled
investigator
testify
unless
defense
disclosed
report
investigator
written
summarizing
interviews
ibid
properly
rejected
defendant
claim
right
compulsory
process
violated
district
bar
investigator
testimony
cf
washington
texas
merely
prevented
respondent
presenting
jury
partial
view
credibility
issue
adducing
investigator
testimony
thereafter
refusing
disclose
contemporaneous
report
might
offer
critical
insights
sixth
amendment
confer
right
present
testimony
free
legitimate
demands
adversarial
system
one
invoke
sixth
amendment
justification
presenting
might
emphasis
added
despite
suggestions
see
ante
preclusion
issue
justifiable
theory
trial
exclude
testimony
presumes
finds
suspect
first
place
trial
purport
rely
presumption
finding
case
rather
ruling
exclude
testimony
discovery
violation
judge
stated
whatever
value
jury
trial
great
deal
doubt
mind
veracity
young
man
testified
whether
eyewitness
scene
sees
guns
wrapped
know
ray
stops
ray
rate
wormley
going
testify
witness
courtroom
app
emphasis
added
addition
preventing
jury
hearing
proffered
testimony
based
presumptive
apparent
lack
credibility
antithetical
principles
laid
washington
texas
reaffirmed
rock
arkansas
criticized
rules
disqualified
witnesses
interest
litigation
effect
suppressing
truth
washington
texas
supra
noting
isqualifications
interest
rested
unstated
premises
right
present
witnesses
subordinate
interest
preventing
perjury
erroneous
decisions
best
avoided
preventing
jury
hearing
testimony
might
perjured
even
testimony
available
crucial
issue
conviction
time
truth
likely
arrived
hearing
testimony
persons
competent
understanding
may
seem
knowledge
facts
involved
case
leaving
credit
weight
testimony
determined
jury
believe
latter
reasoning
required
sixth
amendment
quoting
rosen
although
persons
identified
defense
witnesses
trial
may
trustworthy
categories
persons
surely
presumption
suspect
jury
prevented
even
listening
testimony
least
arbitrary
presumptions
excluding
accomplice
testimony
washington
texas
supra
hearsay
statements
bearing
indicia
reliability
chambers
mississippi
defendant
posthypnosis
testimony
rock
supra
declared
unconstitutional
compare
ante
proper
method
illinois
law
washington
texas
supra
addressing
concern
reliability
prosecutor
inform
jury
circumstances
casting
doubt
testimony
thus
allowing
jury
determine
credit
weight
wants
attach
testimony
power
take
kind
corrective
measure
undisputed
defendant
concedes
allowed
prosecutor
comment
defense
failure
disclose
identity
witness
trial
see
brief
petitioner
leaving
deterrence
aside
moment
precluding
witness
testimony
clearly
arbitrary
disproportionate
purpose
discovery
intended
serve
advancing
quest
truth
alternative
sanctions
namely
granting
prosecution
continuance
allowing
prosecutor
comment
witness
concealment
correct
adverse
impact
discovery
violation
truthseeking
process
moreover
alternative
sanctions
unlike
preclusion
sanction
distort
truthseeking
process
excluding
material
evidence
innocence
course
discovery
sanctions
must
include
corrective
measures
must
also
include
punitive
measures
deter
future
discovery
violations
taking
place
otherwise
parties
little
reason
seek
tactical
advantages
purposefully
violating
discovery
rules
orders
violations
caught
corrected
impose
significant
cost
truthseeking
process
see
supra
ante
long
run
conceivably
outweigh
burden
truthseeking
imposed
preclusion
sanction
without
means
deterring
discovery
violations
moreover
criminal
system
continually
interrupted
distracted
continuances
corrective
measures
see
ante
light
availability
direct
punitive
measures
however
good
reason
least
absent
evidence
defendant
complicity
countenance
arbitrary
disproportionate
punishment
imposed
preclusion
sanction
central
point
keep
mind
witness
preclusion
operates
effective
deterrent
extent
possible
effect
outcome
trial
indeed
employs
part
possibility
distorted
record
cause
jury
convict
defendant
crime
commit
witness
preclusion
thus
punishes
discovery
violations
way
disproportionate
might
result
defendant
charged
capital
offense
convicted
receiving
death
sentence
received
discovery
violation
arbitrary
might
another
case
involving
identical
discovery
violation
result
defendant
suffering
change
verdict
charged
lesser
offense
convicted
receiving
light
suspended
sentence
contrast
direct
punitive
measures
contempt
sanctions
attorney
responsible
disciplinary
proceedings
gradate
punishment
correspond
severity
discovery
violation
arbitrary
disproportionate
nature
preclusion
sanction
highlighted
penalty
falls
defendant
even
though
bore
responsibility
discovery
violation
case
although
ample
evidence
defense
attorney
willfully
violated
rule
evidence
defendant
played
role
violation
trial
make
effort
determine
whether
defendant
bore
responsibility
discovery
violation
indeed
reading
record
leaves
distinct
impression
main
reason
trial
excluded
wormley
testimony
belief
defense
counsel
purposefully
lied
located
wormley
app
worse
yet
trial
made
clear
excluding
wormley
testimony
response
defense
counsel
actions
case
also
response
actions
defense
attorneys
cases
trial
stated
right
going
deny
wormley
opportunity
testify
going
testify
find
blatent
sic
violation
discovery
rules
willful
violation
rules
also
feel
defense
attorneys
violating
discovery
courtroom
last
three
four
cases
blatently
sic
going
put
stop
one
way
absence
evidence
defendant
played
part
attorney
willful
discovery
violation
directly
sanctioning
attorney
fairer
effective
deterring
violations
excluding
defense
evidence
compare
ante
threat
disciplinary
proceedings
fines
imprisonment
likely
influence
attorney
behavior
far
greater
extent
rather
indirect
penalty
threatened
evidentiary
exclusion
sanctions
available
rather
punishing
defendant
rule
trial
sanctioned
attorney
rule
ii
provides
wilful
violation
counsel
applicable
discovery
rule
may
subject
counsel
appropriate
sanctions
see
also
app
threatening
disciplinary
proceedings
direct
sanctions
attorney
particularly
appropriate
since
discovery
rule
violated
case
places
obligation
comply
discovery
defendant
directly
attorney
providing
upon
motion
state
defense
counsel
shall
furnish
state
names
last
known
addresses
persons
intends
call
witnesses
sup
rule
emphasis
added
situation
might
different
defendant
willfully
caused
discovery
violation
points
see
ante
defendants
face
prospect
lengthy
imprisonment
arguably
impossible
deter
direct
punitive
sanctions
contempt
explanation
allowing
defense
witness
preclusion
evidence
defendant
bore
responsibility
discovery
violation
minimum
obligated
remand
factfinding
establish
defendant
responsibility
deities
may
able
visit
sins
father
son
agree
courts
permitted
visit
sins
lawyer
innocent
client
issue
resolved
analogizing
tactical
errors
attorney
might
make
failing
put
witnesses
stand
aided
defense
compare
ante
although
sometimes
held
defendant
bound
tactical
errors
attorney
makes
fall
short
ineffective
assistance
counsel
previously
suggested
client
punished
attorney
misconduct
fundamental
differences
attorney
misconduct
tactical
errors
tactical
errors
products
legitimate
choice
among
tactical
options
tactical
decisions
must
made
within
adversary
system
system
requires
attorneys
make
operating
presumption
attorney
choose
course
likely
benefit
defendant
although
decisions
may
later
appear
erroneous
penalizing
attorneys
miscalculations
generally
exercise
futility
error
usually
visible
hindsight
time
tactical
decision
made
obvious
incorrect
choice
prohibited
one
words
adversary
system
often
effectively
deter
attorney
tactical
errors
want
deter
tactical
decisions
thus
defense
attorney
makes
routine
tactical
decision
introduce
evidence
proper
time
defense
seeks
introduce
evidence
later
deterrence
measures
may
capable
preventing
untimely
introduction
evidence
systemically
disrupting
trials
jury
deliberations
final
verdicts
circumstances
treating
failure
introduce
evidence
proper
time
procedural
default
binds
defendant
arguably
means
systemically
preventing
disruption
binding
defendant
deters
tactical
errors
better
direct
punitive
sanctions
binding
defendant
defense
counsel
procedural
default
definition
eliminates
disruption
actual
operation
adversary
system
generally
bears
analysis
outlined
direct
punitive
sanctions
available
punish
deter
routine
tactical
errors
however
erroneous
nature
attorney
decision
sufficiently
evident
time
system
want
deter
attorney
behavior
directly
sanctioning
attorney
malpractice
bind
defendant
establishing
malpractice
also
established
ineffective
assistance
counsel
rationales
binding
defendants
attorneys
routine
tactical
errors
apply
attorney
misconduct
attorney
never
faced
legitimate
choice
includes
misconduct
option
although
may
adversary
process
function
effectively
every
tactical
decision
required
client
approval
ante
concern
irrelevant
client
authority
approve
misconduct
misconduct
visible
hindsight
many
tactical
errors
consequently
misconduct
amenable
direct
punitive
sanctions
attorneys
deterrent
prevent
attorneys
systemically
engaging
misconduct
disrupt
trial
process
need
take
steps
inflict
punishment
defendant
direct
punitive
sanctions
also
appropriate
since
determination
misconduct
occurred
level
penalty
imposed
primarily
turns
assessment
attorney
culpability
rather
procedural
defaults
assessment
potential
disrupting
trial
system
case
doubt
willfully
concealing
identity
witnesses
one
intends
call
trial
attorney
misconduct
government
seeks
deter
behavior
instances
attorney
knows
behavior
misconduct
legitimate
tactical
decision
time
occurs
direct
punitive
sanctions
attorney
available
see
rule
ii
decision
impose
evidentiary
exclusion
penalty
case
clearly
turned
assessment
attorney
culpability
see
app
people
rayford
app
exclusion
justifiable
discovery
violation
deliberate
one
contends
exclusion
justified
failure
disclose
wormley
identity
inadvertent
short
think
scenario
involve
defendant
willful
violation
discovery
rule
alternative
sanctions
fully
vindicate
purposes
discovery
without
distorting
truthseeking
process
excluding
evidence
innocence
courts
couple
corrective
measures
subject
testimony
issue
discovery
adverse
credibility
inferences
direct
punitive
measures
proportional
discovery
violation
directed
actor
responsible
accordingly
absent
evidence
defendant
responsible
discovery
violation
exclusion
criminal
defense
evidence
arbitrary
disproportionate
purposes
discovery
criminal
justice
per
se
unconstitutional
thus
agree
balancing
approach
conclusion
case
exclusion
constitutional
balancing
approach
moreover
unfortunate
effect
creating
conflict
interest
every
case
involving
willful
discovery
violation
defense
counsel
placed
position
best
argument
make
behalf
client
preclude
defense
witness
punish
personally
case
example
defense
attorney
became
noticeably
timid
judge
threatened
report
actions
disciplinary
commission
app
argue
sure
bring
disciplinary
commission
much
appropriate
sanction
excluding
witness
might
get
client
acquitted
see
expect
defense
counsel
case
act
vigorous
advocates
interests
clients
interests
adverse
seems
particularly
ironic
approve
exclusion
evidence
case
time
several
members
expressed
serious
misgivings
evidentiary
costs
exclusionary
rules
contexts
surely
deterrence
constitutional
violations
less
important
deterrence
discovery
violations
said
evidentiary
costs
significant
imposed
prosecution
turn
head
justice
harlan
termed
fundamental
value
determination
society
far
worse
convict
innocent
man
let
guilty
man
go
free
winship
concurring
opinion
discovery
rules
important
means
helping
criminal
system
convict
guilty
acquit
innocent
precluding
defense
witness
testimony
sanction
defense
counsel
willful
discovery
violation
directly
subverts
criminal
justice
basing
convictions
partial
presentation
facts
nixon
also
arbitrary
disproportionate
purposes
served
discovery
rules
discovery
sanctions
today
thus
sacrifices
paramount
values
criminal
system
misguided
unnecessary
effort
preserve
sanctity
discovery
may
never
know
certain
whether
defendant
bridges
brother
fired
shot
defendant
convicted
know
however
jury
convicted
defendant
permitted
hear
evidence
placed
gun
bridges
brother
hands
contradicted
testimony
bridges
brother
possessed
weapons
evening
defense
counsel
delay
identifying
witness
innocent
man
may
serving
years
prison
dissent
although
rock
addressing
specific
issue
defendant
right
offer
testimony
derived
standard
articulated
general
compulsory
process
case
law
theory
right
present
one
testimony
extended
least
far
right
present
testimony
others
illinois
rule
alone
supplies
broad
array
available
discovery
sanctions
party
failed
comply
applicable
discovery
rule
may
order
party
permit
discovery
material
information
previously
disclosed
grant
continuance
exclude
evidence
enter
order
deems
circumstances
ii
wilful
violation
counsel
applicable
discovery
rule
may
subject
counsel
appropriate
sanctions
see
people
santucci
ultimate
decisions
fact
must
fairly
left
jury
must
determination
credibility
witnesses
weight
afforded
testimony
end
province
judge
criminal
case
convey
opinions
matters
jurors
word
deed
people
heidorn
app
trial
judge
wide
discretion
conduct
trial
must
make
comments
insinuations
word
conduct
indicative
opinion
credibility
witness
cf
people
rayford
app
reasons
cited
illinois
courts
forbidding
judicial
comment
apply
force
prosecutorial
comment
see
santucci
supra
heidorn
supra
precluding
witness
based
solely
judge
belief
witness
lacks
credibility
might
also
implicate
constitutional
right
jury
trial
usurps
jury
central
function
assessing
credibility
witnesses
constitutional
right
jury
trial
mean
little
judge
exclude
defense
witness
whose
testimony
credit
second
day
trial
tuesday
march
defense
counsel
moved
amend
answer
discovery
include
alfred
wormley
defense
witness
stating
defendant
told
wormley
earlier
able
locate
wormley
previously
app
next
day
wormley
testified
defense
counsel
visited
home
served
subpoena
wednesday
march
five
days
trial
began
witness
preclusion
sanction
thus
justified
theory
defendant
waived
right
introduce
wormley
failing
name
prior
trial
indeed
far
procedural
default
exclusion
evidence
unusual
sanction
applied
drastic
cases
people
rayford
app
decision
whether
apply
lies
discretion
trial
app
case
also
note
balancing
approach
create
uncertainty
spawn
unnecessary
litigation
make
difficult
supervise
lower
courts
moreover
exclusion
criminal
defense
evidence
also
important
disadvantage
inviting
claim
every
case
applied
direct
sanctions
attorney
yield
opportunity
disrupt
final
verdicts
justice
blackmun
dissenting
join
justice
brennan
dissenting
opinion
understanding
least
part
confined
reach
general
rules
wish
opinion
express
position
permissible
sanctions
noncompliance
rules
designed
specific
kinds
evidence
example
rule
case
state
legitimate
interests
might
well
occasion
result
different
obtain
factual
context
present
case