systemic error in Illinois

2026See People v. Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 55 (“An error is deemed structural only if it renders the criminal trial *** fundamentally unfair.”); People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 28 (defining a structural error as a type of error that “ ‘erode[s] the integrity of the judicial process and undermine[s] the fairness of the defendant’s trial’ ” (quoting Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186 )); People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845, ¶ 44 (stating that second-prong plain error analysis considers “whether that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of

2026See People v. Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 55 (“An error is deemed structural only if it renders the criminal trial *** fundamentally unfair.”); People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 28 (defining a structural error as a type of error that “ ‘erode[s] the integrity of the judicial process and undermine[s] the fairness of the defendant’s trial’ ” (quoting Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186 )); People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845, ¶ 44 (stating that second-prong plain error analysis considers “whether that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of

2026Defendant’s assertion that the judge failed to maintain a neutral, unbiased position throughout the trial is reviewable under the second prong, as it would be, if proven, “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. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 614 (2010). ¶ 59 “A criminal defendant who elects to be tried in a bench trial ‘is entitled to the same fair, patient, and impartial consideration he would be entitled to by a jury composed of fair, impartial, careful and co

2026See People v. Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 55 (“An error is deemed structural only if it renders the criminal trial *** fundamentally unfair.”); People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 28 (defining a structural error as a type of error that “ ‘erode[s] the integrity of the judicial process and undermine[s] the fairness of the defendant’s trial’ ” (quoting Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186 )); People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845, ¶ 44 (stating that second-prong plain error analysis considers “whether that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of

2026See People v. Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 55 (“An error is deemed structural only if it renders the criminal trial *** fundamentally unfair.”); People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 28 (defining a structural error as a type of error that “ ‘erode[s] the integrity of the judicial process and undermine[s] the fairness of the defendant’s trial’ ” (quoting Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186 )); People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845, ¶ 44 (stating that second-prong plain error analysis considers “whether that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of

2026See People v. Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 55 (“An error is deemed structural only if it renders the criminal trial *** fundamentally unfair.”); People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 28 (defining a structural error as a type of error that “ ‘erode[s] the integrity of the judicial process and undermine[s] the fairness of the defendant’s trial’ ” (quoting Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186 )); People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845, ¶ 44 (stating that second-prong plain error analysis considers “whether that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of

2014Illinois courts have narrowed the second prong to errors that are “ ‘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.” ’ ” Watt, 2013 IL App (2d) 120183, ¶ 38 (quoting People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 197-98 (2009), quoting Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186 ); see Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999) (“we have found an error to be ‘structural,’ and thus subject to automatic reversal, only in a ‘very limited class of cases’ ”); Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 (“In Glasper, this court equated t

2014Illinois courts have narrowed the second prong to errors that are “ 'structural,' i.e., a systemic error which serves to erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant's - 24 - No. 1-12-1171 trial.” Watt, 2013 IL App (2d) 120183, ¶ 38 (quoting People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173 , 197–98 (2009)); see Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999) (“we have found an error to be ‘structural,’ and thus subject to automatic reversal, only in a ‘very limited class of cases’ ”); Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 (“In Glasper, this court equated the second prong of plain-error

2024The Applicable Law ¶ 30 The First District recently explained second-prong plain error in People v. Jones, 2024 IL App (1st) 221555, ¶ 69 , in which it wrote the following: “ ‘Error under the second prong of plain error analysis has been equated with structural error, meaning that automatic reversal is only required where an error is deemed to be a systemic error that serves to “erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant’s trial.” ’ People v. Cosmano, 2011 IL App (1st) 101196, ¶ 78 (quoting [People v.] Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d [167,] 197-98 [(2009)]). ‘

2024The Applicable Law ¶ 30 The First District recently explained second-prong plain error in People v. Jones, 2024 IL App (1st) 221555, ¶ 69 , in which it wrote the following: “ ‘Error under the second prong of plain error analysis has been equated with structural error, meaning that automatic reversal is only required where an error is deemed to be a systemic error that serves to “erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant’s trial.” ’ People v. Cosmano, 2011 IL App (1st) 101196, ¶ 78 (quoting [People v.] Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d [167,] 197-98 [(2009)]). ‘

2021See United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 150 (2006) (holding that error is deemed structural when it has “ ‘consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate’ ” (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 282 (1993))). ¶ 51 A structural error is a systemic error that serves to erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of a defendant’s trial.

2020See United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 150 (2006) (holding that error is deemed structural when it has “ ‘consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate’ ” (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 282 (1993))). ¶ 51 A structural error is a systemic error that serves to erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of a defendant’s trial.

2016The Thompson court noted that "[t]he Supreme Court has recognized an error as ' "structural" ' only in a ' "very limited class of cases." ' " 5 Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 609 (citing Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d at 198 , quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999); quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997)).

2016The Thompson court noted that “[t]he Supreme Court has recognized an error as structural only in a very limited class of cases.” Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 609 (citing Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d at 198 , quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999), and citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997)).

2016Illinois courts have narrowed the second prong to structural errors, “i.e., ‘a systemic error which serves to “erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant’s trial.” ’ ” Watt, 2013 IL App (2d) 120183, ¶ 38 , 1 N.E.3d 1145 (quoting People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 197-98 , 917 N.E.2d 401, 416 (2009), quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186 , 830 N.E.2d 467, 479 (2005)). ¶ 88 In Watt, 2013 IL App (2d) 120183 , ¶ 39, 1 N.E.3d 1145 , the court held any error in the jury instructions regarding a “dangerous weapon” rather than a “firearm” did not

2016Illinois courts have narrowed the second prong to structural errors, “i.e., ‘a systemic error which serves to “erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant’s trial.” ’ ” Watt, 2013 IL App (2d) 120183, ¶ 38 , 1 N.E.3d 1145 (quoting People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 197-98 , 917 N.E.2d 401, 416 (2009), quoting People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186 , 830 N.E.2d 467, 479 (2005)). ¶ 88 In Watt, 2013 IL App (2d) 120183 , ¶ 39, 1 N.E.3d 1145 , the court held any error in the jury instructions regarding a “dangerous weapon” rather than a “firearm” did not

2019The supreme court has also explicitly stated that the admission of hearsay evidence in violation of Crawford is not a "structural error." In People v. Patterson , 217 Ill. 2d 407 , 424-25, 299 Ill.Dec. 157 , 841 N.E.2d 889 (2005), the court recognized that admission of evidence that did not conform with the confrontation clause is not a "structural defect" but rather a "trial error," subject to a harmless error analysis.

2019The supreme court has also explicitly stated that the admission of hearsay evidence in violation of Crawford is not a "structural error." In People v. Patterson , 217 Ill. 2d 407 , 424-25, 299 Ill.Dec. 157 , 841 N.E.2d 889 (2005), the court recognized that admission of evidence that did not conform with the confrontation clause is not a "structural defect" but rather a "trial error," subject to a harmless error analysis.

2021People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 59 (a structural error is “a systemic error that serves to erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of a trial”); People v. Jackson, 2015 IL App (3d) 140300, ¶¶ 54, 56 .

2020An error in denying a defendant the right to represent himself is a structural error that may be reviewed under the second prong of the plain error doctrine as it is “a systemic error that serves to erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of a trial.” People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 59 . ¶ 37 Here, even if we could review the forfeited claims under the second prong of plain error review—despite defendant’s waiver of those issues by way of his decision to enter a guilty 12 plea—such a review is not applicable in this case because there was no error.

2010The court further observed that automatic reversal was only required where an error was deemed structural, which the court noted was confined to a limited number of cases and which the court defined as “a systemic 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 Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186 ; see also People v. Rivera, 227 Ill. 2d 1, 19-20 (2007).

2010The court further observed that automatic reversal was only required where an error was deemed structural, which the court noted was confined to a limited number of cases and which the court defined as “a systemic 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 Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186 ; see also People v. Rivera, 227 Ill. 2d 1, 19-20 (2007).

2026This prong requires “a systemic error which serves to erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine[s] the fairness of the defendant’s trial.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 - 14; see also Hartfield, 2022 IL 126729, ¶ 49 (quoting Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 193 (quoting People v. Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d 1, 8 (2004))) (“a jury instruction error rises to the level of plain error only when it “ ‘creates a serious risk that the jurors incorrectly convicted the defendant because they did not understand the applicable law, so as to severely threaten the fairness of

2014A jury instruction error rises to the level of plain error only when it “ ‘creates a serious risk that the jurors incorrectly convicted the defendant because they did not understand the applicable law, so as to severely threaten the fairness of the trial.’ ” Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 193 (quoting People v. Hopp, 209 Ill. 2d 1, 8 (2004)). ¶ 20 We conclude the erroneous jury instructions did not amount to structural error and find People v. Watt, 2013 IL App (2d) 120183 , instructive.

2022Where a defendant shows the error was so serious that it affected the fairness of the trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, “ ‘[p]rejudice *** is presumed because of the importance of the right involved.’ ” Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 50 (quoting Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 187 ).

2021If a defendant shows the error was so serious that it affected the fairness of the trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, “ ‘[p]rejudice *** is presumed because of the importance of the right involved.’ ” Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 50 (quoting Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 187 ). ¶ 55 Although we agree with defendant’s contention that two of the prosecutor’s comments during rebuttal argument were improper, structural error does not exist in this case.

2021See United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 150 (2006) (holding that error is deemed structural when it has “ ‘consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate’ ” (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 282 (1993))). ¶ 51 A structural error is a systemic error that serves to erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of a defendant’s trial.

2020See United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 150 (2006) (holding that error is deemed structural when it has “ ‘consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate’ ” (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 282 (1993))). ¶ 51 A structural error is a systemic error that serves to erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of a defendant’s trial.

2021People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 59 (a structural error is “a systemic error that serves to erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of a trial”); People v. Jackson, 2015 IL App (3d) 140300, ¶¶ 54, 56 .

2018People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 59 (a structural error is “a systemic error that serves to erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of a trial”); People v. Jackson, 2015 IL App (3d) 140300, ¶¶ 54, 56 .

2019"An error is typically designated as structural only if it necessarily renders a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable means of determining guilt or innocence." Thompson , 238 Ill. 2d at 609 , 345 Ill.Dec. 560 , 939 N.E.2d 403 ; see also People v. Henderson , 2017 IL App (3d) 150550 , ¶ 47, 419 Ill.Dec. 90 , 92 N.E.3d 501 ; People v. Matthews , 2017 IL App (4th) 150911 , ¶ 43, 419 Ill.Dec. 478 , 93 N.E.3d 597 .

2019"An error is typically designated as structural only if it necessarily renders a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable means of determining guilt or innocence." Thompson , 238 Ill. 2d at 609 , 345 Ill.Dec. 560 , 939 N.E.2d 403 ; see also People v. Henderson , 2017 IL App (3d) 150550 , ¶ 47, 419 Ill.Dec. 90 , 92 N.E.3d 501 ; People v. Matthews , 2017 IL App (4th) 150911 , ¶ 43, 419 Ill.Dec. 478 , 93 N.E.3d 597 .

2009Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d at 197-98 ; see also People v. Davis, 233 Ill. 2d 244, 273 , 909 N.E.2d 766, 782 (2009) (typical trial error does not amount to a structural defect requiring automatic reversal).

2009Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d at 197-98 ; see also People v. Davis, 233 Ill. 2d 244, 273 , 909 N.E.2d 766, 782 (2009) (typical trial error does not amount to a structural defect requiring automatic reversal).

2020Reviewing courts “typically undertake[ ] plain- error analysis by first determining whether error occurred at all.” People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189 , 940 N.E.2d 1045, 1059 (2010). ¶ 17 A trial court errs where the sentence it chooses is not authorized by law.

2020Reviewing courts “typically undertake[ ] plain- error analysis by first determining whether error occurred at all.” People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189 , 940 N.E.2d 1045, 1059 (2010). ¶ 17 A trial court errs where the sentence it chooses is not authorized by law.

2019Only those constitutional violations that are 'structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism,' such as total deprivation of the right to trial counsel or absence of an impartial trier of fact, are per se error that necessitate remandment for a new proceeding." People v. Shaw , 186 Ill. 2d 301 , 344-45 [ 239 Ill.Dec. 311 , 713 N.E.2d 1161 ] (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279 , 309 [ 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ] (1991) ).' " People v. Sheley , 2017 IL App (3d) 140659 , ¶ 16, 418 Ill.Dec. 335 , 90 N.E.3d 493 .

2019Only those constitutional violations that are 'structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism,' such as total deprivation of the right to trial counsel or absence of an impartial trier of fact, are per se error that necessitate remandment for a new proceeding." People v. Shaw , 186 Ill. 2d 301 , 344-45 [ 239 Ill.Dec. 311 , 713 N.E.2d 1161 ] (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279 , 309 [ 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ] (1991) ).' " People v. Sheley , 2017 IL App (3d) 140659 , ¶ 16, 418 Ill.Dec. 335 , 90 N.E.3d 493 .

2019Only those constitutional violations that are 'structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism,' such as total deprivation of the right to trial counsel or absence of an impartial trier of fact, are per se error that necessitate remandment for a new proceeding." People v. Shaw , 186 Ill. 2d 301 , 344-45 [ 239 Ill.Dec. 311 , 713 N.E.2d 1161 ] (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279 , 309 [ 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ] (1991) ).' " People v. Sheley , 2017 IL App (3d) 140659 , ¶ 16, 418 Ill.Dec. 335 , 90 N.E.3d 493 .

2019Only those constitutional violations that are 'structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism,' such as total deprivation of the right to trial counsel or absence of an impartial trier of fact, are per se error that necessitate remandment for a new proceeding." People v. Shaw , 186 Ill. 2d 301 , 344-45 [ 239 Ill.Dec. 311 , 713 N.E.2d 1161 ] (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279 , 309 [ 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ] (1991) ).' " People v. Sheley , 2017 IL App (3d) 140659 , ¶ 16, 418 Ill.Dec. 335 , 90 N.E.3d 493 .

2026Defendant’s assertion that the judge failed to maintain a neutral, unbiased position throughout the trial is reviewable under the second prong, as it would be, if proven, “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. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 614 (2010). ¶ 59 “A criminal defendant who elects to be tried in a bench trial ‘is entitled to the same fair, patient, and impartial consideration he would be entitled to by a jury composed of fair, impartial, careful and co