defective reasonable doubt instruction in Illinois

2026Evidentiary errors do not implicate the second prong (see People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 609 (2010) (second-prong plain error, or structural error, applies only to a limited class of cases including a complete denial of counsel, trial before a biased judge, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of self-representation at trial, denial of a public trial, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction), so this is the only avenue open to him.

2026Structural errors are a limited category, having only been found in cases involving, “a complete denial of counsel, trial before a biased judge, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of self- representation at trial, denial of a public trial, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id. at 609 .

2024These cases include “a complete denial of counsel, trial before a biased judge, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of self- representation at trial, denial of a public trial, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id. (citing Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 218 n.2 (2006)). ¶ 24 Error can be classified as structural as a matter of state law, irrespective of whether the error is construed as structural under federal law.

2022The Supreme Court has recognized errors as “structural” only in a “ ‘very limited class of cases’ ” (id. ¶ 28 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997)), including “a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id. ¶ 29 (citing Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 218 n.2 (2006)). “[T]hese errors deprive defendants of ‘basic protections’ without which ‘a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its

2026The Supreme Court has “recognized an error as ‘structural,’ and subject to automatic reversal, only in ‘a very limited class of cases.’ ” Moon, 2022 IL 125959, ¶ 28 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997)). ¶ 34 The United States Supreme Court has identified the following errors as structural errors: “a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Moon, 2022 IL 125959, ¶ 29 .

2024The United States Supreme Court has also explained that structural errors—which are subject to automatic reversal—occur only in a “ ‘very limited class of cases.’ ” Moon, 2022 IL 125959, ¶ 28 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997)). ¶ 57 “The structural errors identified by the Supreme Court include a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id. ¶ 29 (citing Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S.

2026The United States Supreme Court has limited the categories of structural error to the following: “a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 13 (2010).

2026For context, we note that the only instructional error that is deemed to be “structural”—and thus subject to automatic reversal—is a “a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 13 (2010).

2022The Supreme Court has recognized errors as “structural” only in a “ ‘very - 11 - limited class of cases’ ” (id. ¶ 28 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997)), including “a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id. ¶ 29 (citing Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 218 n.2 (2006)). “ ‘[T]hese errors deprive defendants of ‘basic protections’ without which a ‘criminal trial cannot reliably s

2022The Supreme Court has recognized errors as “structural” only in a “ ‘very limited class of cases’ ” (id. ¶ 28 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997)), including “a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id. ¶ 29 (citing Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 218 n.2 (2006)). “[T]hese errors deprive defendants of ‘basic protections’ without which ‘a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its

2026The structural errors identified by the United States Supreme Court and referenced by the Illinois Supreme Court include “ ‘a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.’ ” Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 57 (quoting Moon, 2022 IL 125959, ¶ 29 ). ¶ 43 Here, the defendant claims that second-prong plain error applies because Kull’s testimony was exactly the type of evidence that the trial court decided was overly prejudici

2026The Supreme Court has “recognized an error as ‘structural,’ and subject to automatic reversal, only in ‘a very limited class of cases.’ ” Moon, 2022 IL 125959, ¶ 28 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997)). ¶ 34 The United States Supreme Court has identified the following errors as structural errors: “a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Moon, 2022 IL 125959, ¶ 29 .

2024Id. ¶ 38 “The structural errors identified by the Supreme Court include a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id. ¶ 29 (citing Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 218 n.2 (2006)).

2024Id. ¶ 38 “The structural errors identified by the Supreme Court include a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id. ¶ 29 (citing Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 218 n.2 (2006)).

2023“Courts apply the harmless error doctrine to most errors, constitutional and otherwise, to promote the public’s confidence and respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the criminal trial rather than on the presence of inconsequential error.” Id. ¶ 72 (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 (1986)). ¶ 55 Structural error is not limited to those identified by the United States Supreme Court: complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection

2011The Supreme Court has determined that structural errors occur only in a "very limited class of cases" (internal quotation marks omitted) ( Neder, 527 U.S. at 8 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 ), including the denial of the right to counsel, the denial of the right of self-representation, the denial of the right to public trial, and the denial of the right to trial by jury resulting from the giving of a defective reasonable doubt instruction ( Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 149 , 126 S.Ct. 2557 ).

2020Structural errors have been found only in a limited class of cases, including those involving “a complete denial of counsel, trial before a biased judge, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of self-representation at trial, denial of a public trial, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id.; see also In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79, 917 N.E.2d 487 , 499 (2009) (finding error under the second prong based on the trial court’s failure to apply the one- act, one-crime rule); People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 , 902 N.E.2d 691, 700 (2009) (finding

2020Structural errors have been found only in a limited class of cases, including those involving “a complete denial of counsel, trial before a biased judge, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of self-representation at trial, denial of a public trial, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id.; see also In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79, 917 N.E.2d 487 , 499 (2009) (finding error under the second prong based on the trial court’s failure to apply the one- act, one-crime rule); People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 , 902 N.E.2d 691, 700 (2009) (finding

2020Structural errors have been found only in a limited class of cases, including those involving “a complete denial of counsel, trial before a biased judge, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of self-representation at trial, denial of a public trial, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id.; see also In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79, 917 N.E.2d 487 , 499 (2009) (finding error under the second prong based on the trial court’s failure to apply the one- act, one-crime rule); People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 , 902 N.E.2d 691, 700 (2009) (finding

2020Structural errors have been found only in a limited class of cases, including those involving “a complete denial of counsel, trial before a biased judge, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of self-representation at trial, denial of a public trial, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id.; see also In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79, 917 N.E.2d 487 , 499 (2009) (finding error under the second prong based on the trial court’s failure to apply the one- act, one-crime rule); People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 , 902 N.E.2d 691, 700 (2009) (finding

2025Our supreme court has compared the second prong of plain-error review to structural error and concluded that reversal is required “where an error is deemed structural, i.e., a systemic error which serves to erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant’s trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. 23 Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613-14 , (2010) (citing Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186 .) Structural errors “include a complete denial of counsel, trial before a biased judge, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of self-represen

2022Structural error is a “systematic error which serves to ‘erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant’s trial.’ ” Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d at 197 -98 (quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186 (2005)). ¶ 134 In Thompson, our supreme court discussed the limited class of structural errors as including: (1) a complete denial of counsel; (2) trial before a biased judge; (3) racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury; (4) denial of self-representation at trial; (5) denial of a public trial; and (6) a defective reasonable doubt instruction.

2016See People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 , ¶ 47. ¶ 33 Here, the trial court’s decision to grant the State’s motion and bar Dr. Frumkin’s testimony does not fall within any recognized category of structural error, such as “trial before a biased judge, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of self-representation at trial, denial of a public trial, [or] a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 609 (2010).

2016See People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 , ¶ 47. ¶ 33 Here, the trial court’s decision to grant the State’s motion and bar Dr. Frumkin’s testimony does not fall within any recognized category of structural error, such as “trial before a biased judge, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of self-representation at trial, denial of a public trial, [or] a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 609 (2010).

2024Structural errors are subject to automatic reversal only in a limited class of cases, which include “a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id. ¶ 80 Logan contends that the Miranda violation in this case seriously affected the fairness and integrity of her trial because “the record supports many troubling inferences about law enforcement’s actions in obtaining the reenactment video.” - 28 - She relies on Uni

2024Structural errors are subject to automatic reversal only in a limited class of cases, which include “a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id. ¶ 80 Logan contends that the Miranda violation in this case seriously affected the fairness and integrity of her trial because “the record supports many troubling inferences about law enforcement’s actions in obtaining the reenactment video.” She relies on United Sta

2022The Supreme Court has recognized errors as “structural” only in a “ ‘very limited class of cases’ ” (id. ¶ 28 (quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997)), including “a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id. ¶ 29 (citing Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 218 n.2 (2006)). “[T]hese errors deprive defendants of ‘basic protections’ without which ‘a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its

2010Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 218 n. 2, 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 2551 n. 2, 165 L.Ed.2d 466 , 474 n. 2 (2006). "`[I]f the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator, there is a strong presumption that any other [constitutional] errors that may have occurred are subject to harmless-error analysis.'" Neder, 527 U.S. at 8 , 119 S.Ct. at 1833 , 144 L.Ed.2d at 46 , quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3106 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460, 471 (1986).

2020But to rise to the level of second-prong plain error, “the error nevertheless must be of a similar kind: an error affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Johnson, 2017 IL App (2d) 141241, ¶ 51 (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999), quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991)).

2018But to rise to the level of second-prong plain error, “the error 39 1-14-0369 nevertheless must be of a similar kind: an error affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Johnson, 2017 IL App (2d) 141241, ¶ 51 (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991)).

2020Structural errors have been found only in a limited class of cases, including those involving “a complete denial of counsel, trial before a biased judge, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of self-representation at trial, denial of a public trial, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id.; see also In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79, 917 N.E.2d 487 , 499 (2009) (finding error under the second prong based on the trial court’s failure to apply the one- act, one-crime rule); People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 , 902 N.E.2d 691, 700 (2009) (finding

2019Structural errors have been found only in a limited class of cases, including those involving “a complete denial of counsel, trial before a biased judge, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, denial of self-representation at trial, denial of a public trial, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Id.; see also In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79, 917 N.E.2d 487 , 499 (2009) (finding error under the second prong based on the trial court’s failure to apply the one-act, one-crime rule); People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 , 902 N.E.2d 691, 700 (2009) (finding e

2018See McKinley, 2017 IL App (3d) 140752, ¶¶ 27, 36 , 74 N.E.3d 482 (finding this issue did not amount to a structural error).

2017See McKinley , 2017 IL App (3d) 140752 , ¶¶ 27, 412 Ill.Dec. 15 , 74 N.E.3d 482 (finding this issue did not amount to a structural error).

2023Structural errors under federal law include -7- “a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 29 .

2023Those structural errors include “a complete denial of counsel, denial of self- representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 29 .

2026People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007).

2015Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 565 .

2026The structural errors identified by the United States Supreme Court and referenced by the Illinois Supreme Court include “ ‘a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.’ ” Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 57 (quoting Moon, 2022 IL 125959, ¶ 29 ). ¶ 43 Here, the defendant claims that second-prong plain error applies because Kull’s testimony was exactly the type of evidence that the trial court decided was overly prejudici

2025Our supreme court “has equated second prong plain error with structural error, which is the type of error that erode[s] the integrity of the judicial process and undermine[s] the fairness of the defendant’s trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 55 . “[S]tructural errors identified by the Supreme Court include a complete denial of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective reasonable doubt instruction.” (Internal quotatio