comments error in Illinois

2004See Williams, 193 Ill. 2d at 27 , 737 N.E.2d at 245 (“Before invoking the plain error exception, however, ‘it is appropriate to determine whether error occurred at all.’ People v. Wade, 131 Ill. 2d 370, 376 [, 546 N.E.2d 553, 555 ] (1989)”).

2004See Williams, 193 Ill. 2d at 27 , 737 N.E.2d at 245 (“Before invoking the plain error exception, however, ‘it is appropriate to determine whether error occurred at all.’ People v. Wade, 131 Ill. 2d 370, 376 [, 546 N.E.2d 553, 555 ] (1989)”).

2004See Williams, 193 Ill. 2d at 27 , 737 N.E.2d at 245 (“Before invoking the plain error exception, however, ‘it is appropriate to determine whether error occurred at all.’ People v. Wade, 131 Ill. 2d 370, 376 [, 546 N.E.2d 553, 555 ] (1989)”).

2004See Williams, 193 Ill. 2d at 27 , 737 N.E.2d at 245 (“Before invoking the plain error exception, however, ‘it is appropriate to determine whether error occurred at all.’ People v. Wade, 131 Ill. 2d 370, 376 [, 546 N.E.2d 553, 555 ] (1989)”).

1997See Moore v. Centreville *398 Township Hospital, 246 Ill.App.3d 579 , 186 Ill.Dec. 689 , 616 N.E.2d 1321 (1993).

1997See Moore v. Centreville Township Hospital, 246 Ill.

1997See also Day, 969 F.2d at 46 n.9 (discussing why this type of "sandbagging” is generally not a concern).

1997See also Day , 969 F.2d at 46 n.9 (discussing why this type of “sandbagging” is generally not a concern).

2019A structural error is " 'a systemic error which serves to "erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant's trial." ' " Id. at 614 , 345 Ill.Dec. 560 , 939 N.E.2d 403 (quoting People v. Glasper , 234 Ill. 2d 173 , 197-98, 334 Ill.Dec. 575 , 917 N.E.2d 401 (2009), quoting People v. Herron , 215 Ill. 2d 167 , 186, 294 Ill.Dec. 55 , 830 N.E.2d 467 (2005) ). ¶ 47 For all the reasons stated above, even if the trial judge's comments were error, they did not rise to the level of structural error. ¶ 48 CONCLUSION ¶ 49 We find no error.

2019A structural error is " 'a systemic error which serves to "erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant's trial." ' " Id. at 614 , 345 Ill.Dec. 560 , 939 N.E.2d 403 (quoting People v. Glasper , 234 Ill. 2d 173 , 197-98, 334 Ill.Dec. 575 , 917 N.E.2d 401 (2009), quoting People v. Herron , 215 Ill. 2d 167 , 186, 294 Ill.Dec. 55 , 830 N.E.2d 467 (2005) ). ¶ 47 For all the reasons stated above, even if the trial judge's comments were error, they did not rise to the level of structural error. ¶ 48 CONCLUSION ¶ 49 We find no error.

2019A structural error is " 'a systemic error which serves to "erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant's trial." ' " Id. at 614 , 345 Ill.Dec. 560 , 939 N.E.2d 403 (quoting People v. Glasper , 234 Ill. 2d 173 , 197-98, 334 Ill.Dec. 575 , 917 N.E.2d 401 (2009), quoting People v. Herron , 215 Ill. 2d 167 , 186, 294 Ill.Dec. 55 , 830 N.E.2d 467 (2005) ). ¶ 47 For all the reasons stated above, even if the trial judge's comments were error, they did not rise to the level of structural error. ¶ 48 CONCLUSION ¶ 49 We find no error.

2019A structural error is " 'a systemic error which serves to "erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant's trial." ' " Id. at 614 , 345 Ill.Dec. 560 , 939 N.E.2d 403 (quoting People v. Glasper , 234 Ill. 2d 173 , 197-98, 334 Ill.Dec. 575 , 917 N.E.2d 401 (2009), quoting People v. Herron , 215 Ill. 2d 167 , 186, 294 Ill.Dec. 55 , 830 N.E.2d 467 (2005) ). ¶ 47 For all the reasons stated above, even if the trial judge's comments were error, they did not rise to the level of structural error. ¶ 48 CONCLUSION ¶ 49 We find no error.

2026“In determining whether improper comment has been made on a defendant’s failure to take the witness stand and testify, a court will consider whether the reference was intended or calculated to direct the attention of the jury to the defendant’s neglect to avail himself of his legal right to testify.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 126 (citing Dixon, 91 Ill. 2d at 350 ; People v. Hopkins, 52 Ill. 2d 1, 6 (1972); People v. Morgan, 112 Ill. 2d 111, 133-34 (1986)).

2026See Jones, 2020 IL App (4th) 190909, ¶ 179 . ¶ 21 III.

2026I don’t think that she was commenting at all about the defendant’s refusal to take the stand in Court, so that will be denied.” ¶ 58 In response to defendant’s arguments, the State contends that the prosecutor’s comments were invited by defense counsel’s closing argument and in the alternative, if the prosecutor’s comments were error, they were harmless error. ¶ 59 “An accused has a constitutional right not to testify as a witness in his own behalf [citation omitted], and the prosecutor is forbidden to make direct or indirect comment on the exercise of that right.” People v. Arman, 131 Ill. 2d

2026“In determining whether improper comment has been made on a defendant’s failure to take the witness stand and testify, a court will consider whether the reference was intended or calculated to direct the attention of the jury to the defendant’s neglect to avail himself of his legal right to testify.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 126 (citing Dixon, 91 Ill. 2d at 350 ; People v. Hopkins, 52 Ill. 2d 1, 6 (1972); People v. Morgan, 112 Ill. 2d 111, 133-34 (1986)).

2026I don’t think that she was commenting at all about the defendant’s refusal to take the stand in Court, so that will be denied.” ¶ 58 In response to defendant’s arguments, the State contends that the prosecutor’s comments were invited by defense counsel’s closing argument and in the alternative, if the prosecutor’s comments were error, they were harmless error. ¶ 59 “An accused has a constitutional right not to testify as a witness in his own behalf [citation omitted], and the prosecutor is forbidden to make direct or indirect comment on the exercise of that right.” People v. Arman, 131 Ill. 2d

2025See Ammons, 2021 IL App (3d) 150743, ¶ 52 (a prosecutor may properly respond “to the remarks made by defense counsel”); see also Nicholas, 218 Ill. 2d at 121-22 (a prosecutor may “urge the jury to administer the law without fear, when such argument is based upon competent and pertinent evidence”). ¶ 25 However, the prosecutor’s comments that defense counsel attempted to “demonize” Stapleton and put him “on trial,” subjecting Stapleton to being “accused, *** insulted and *** degraded,” suggested impropriety of counsel and in the manner with which he conducted himself at trial.

2025See Ammons, 2021 IL App (3d) 150743, ¶ 52 (a prosecutor may properly respond “to the remarks made by defense counsel”); see also Nicholas, 218 Ill. 2d at 121-22 (a prosecutor may “urge the jury to administer the law without fear, when such argument is based upon competent and pertinent evidence”). ¶ 25 However, the prosecutor’s comments that defense counsel attempted to “demonize” Stapleton and put him “on trial,” subjecting Stapleton to being “accused, *** insulted and *** degraded,” suggested impropriety of counsel and in the manner with which he conducted himself at trial.

2021People v. Luna, 2013 IL App (1st) 072253, ¶ 125 . “[A] prosecutor must not state that the defendant has an obligation to come forward with evidence that would create a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.” Luna, 2013 IL App (1st) 072253, ¶ 129 ; see also People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 522 , (1984) (applying the same rule).

2020People v. Brown, 172 Ill. 2d 1, 43 (1996); see also Phagan, 2019 IL App (1st) 153031, ¶¶ 65, 71-73 (State’s comments that officers were “just doing their job.

2020People v. Brown, 172 Ill. 2d 1, 43 (1996); see also Phagan, 2019 IL App (1st) 153031, ¶¶ 65, 71-73 (State’s comments that officers were “just doing their job.

1992See People v. Scott (1990), 194 Ill.