valid jury waiver in Illinois

2025See, e.g., Hutt, 2023 IL 128170, ¶ 6 (“The trial court admonished defendant that he had the absolute right to a jury -6- 1-23-1317 trial and asked defendant if he intended to waive his right to a jury trial in both felony cases.”); People v. Scott, 186 Ill. 2d 283, 285 (1999) (“We have never found a valid jury waiver where the defendant was not present in open court when a jury waiver, written or otherwise, was at least discussed.”); Tooles, 177 Ill. 2d at 469-73 (in three consolidated appeals, without written jury waivers, each trial court addressed each defendant directly, which factored int

2022In fact, the supreme court has said: “ ‘We have never found a valid jury waiver where the defendant was not present in open court when a jury waiver, written or otherwise, was at least discussed.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Scott, 186 Ill. 2d 283, 285 (1999)).

2024“A defendant may waive his right to a jury trial, but for a valid jury waiver, the trial court must ensure the waiver was knowing and understanding.” Hutt, 2023 IL 128170, ¶ 30 (citing Bracey, 213 Ill. 2d at 269 , and 725 ILCS 5/103-6 (West 2016)).

2022In fact, the supreme court has said: “ ‘We have never found a valid jury waiver where the defendant was not present in open court when a jury waiver, written or otherwise, was at least discussed.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Scott, 186 Ill. 2d 283, 285 (1999)).

1996(People v. Ramey (1992), 152 Ill. 2d 41, 59 ; People v. Ruiz (1989), 132 Ill. 2d 1, 20-21 .) Thus, in the present case, a valid jury waiver occurred where the trial court explained to defendant that he was waiving the right to have the jury consider the capital sentencing issues and that the sentencing decision would, therefore, be made by the court alone.

1995In finding his argument unpersuasive, this court observed that under Illinois law, "it is sufficient, for a valid jury waiver, that *** the trial court explain to the defendant that he is waiving the right to have a jury consider the capital sentencing issues and that the sentencing decision would, therefore, be made by the judge alone.” (Ramey, 152 Ill. 2d at 59 , citing People v. Ruiz (1989), 132 Ill. 2d 1, 20-21 .) This court concluded that "[ijnasmuch as the defendant need not know of the nonunaminity rule before his jury waiver will be held to have been knowing, intelligent and voluntary,

2002Only by that means can a court of review determine whether the entry in the record reflects a valid jury waiver.” Smith, 106 Ill. 2d at 335 . “ ‘If the claim is that the jury waiver was not made in open court or that it was not understandingly made, the record should be sufficient to cover all proceedings which involved the waiver.’ ” Smith, 106 Ill. 2d at 335 , quoting People v. Oatis, 47 Ill.

2002Only by that means can a court of review determine whether the entry in the record reflects a valid jury waiver.” Smith, 106 Ill. 2d at 335 . “ ‘If the claim is that the jury waiver was not made in open court or that it was not understandingly made, the record should be sufficient to cover all proceedings which involved the waiver.’ ” Smith, 106 Ill. 2d at 335 , quoting People v. Oatis, 47 Ill.

2025See, e.g., Hutt, 2023 IL 128170, ¶ 6 (“The trial court admonished defendant that he had the absolute right to a jury -6- 1-23-1317 trial and asked defendant if he intended to waive his right to a jury trial in both felony cases.”); People v. Scott, 186 Ill. 2d 283, 285 (1999) (“We have never found a valid jury waiver where the defendant was not present in open court when a jury waiver, written or otherwise, was at least discussed.”); Tooles, 177 Ill. 2d at 469-73 (in three consolidated appeals, without written jury waivers, each trial court addressed each defendant directly, which factored int

2016Rather than holding that these were requirements for a valid jury waiver, however, our supreme court in that case confirmed that “no set admonition or advice is required” because validity “turns on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Id. at 469 .

2025See, e.g., Hutt, 2023 IL 128170, ¶ 6 (“The trial court admonished defendant that he had the absolute right to a jury -6- 1-23-1317 trial and asked defendant if he intended to waive his right to a jury trial in both felony cases.”); People v. Scott, 186 Ill. 2d 283, 285 (1999) (“We have never found a valid jury waiver where the defendant was not present in open court when a jury waiver, written or otherwise, was at least discussed.”); Tooles, 177 Ill. 2d at 469-73 (in three consolidated appeals, without written jury waivers, each trial court addressed each defendant directly, which factored int

2024“A defendant may waive his right to a jury trial, but for a valid jury waiver, the trial court must ensure the waiver was knowing and understanding.” Hutt, 2023 IL 128170, ¶ 30 (citing Bracey, 213 Ill. 2d at 269 , and 725 ILCS 5/103-6 (West 2016)).

1997People v. Haynes, 174 Ill. 2d 204, 252 (1996); People v. Ramey, 152 Ill. 2d 41, 59 (1992).

1997People v. Haynes, 174 Ill. 2d 204, 252 (1996); People v. Ramey, 152 Ill. 2d 41, 59 (1992).

1997Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d at 535-36 ; see also People v. Strickland, 154 Ill. 2d 489, 517 (1992) (there is no fixed formula that must be recited by the court prior to receiving a defendant’s valid jury waiver at a capital sentencing hearing).

1997Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d at 535-36 ; see also People v. Strickland, 154 Ill. 2d 489, 517 (1992) (there is no fixed formula that must be recited by the court prior to receiving a defendant's valid jury waiver at a capital sentencing hearing).

2004People v. Frey, 103 Ill.2d 327, 332 , 82 Ill.Dec. 661 , 469 N.E.2d 195 (1984). *316 At the minimum, though, our supreme court has stated, there can never be a valid jury waiver where the defendant was not present in open court "when a jury waiver, written or otherwise, was at least discussed." Scott, 186 Ill.2d at 285 , 238 Ill.Dec. 36 , 710 N.E.2d 833 .

2004People v. Frey, 103 Ill.2d 327, 332 , 82 Ill.Dec. 661 , 469 N.E.2d 195 (1984). *316 At the minimum, though, our supreme court has stated, there can never be a valid jury waiver where the defendant was not present in open court "when a jury waiver, written or otherwise, was at least discussed." Scott, 186 Ill.2d at 285 , 238 Ill.Dec. 36 , 710 N.E.2d 833 .

2026As the supreme court noted in R.A.B., “vague references to a stipulated bench trial by [defendant’s] attorney, the prosecutor, and the circuit court [are] insufficient to constitute a valid jury waiver.” R.A.B., 197 Ill. 2d at 367 . ¶ 13 The State concedes that the references in the instant case were insufficient to constitute a valid jury waiver in open court.

2013R.A.B., 197 Ill. 2d at 367. ¶ 11 The State cites People v. Frey, 103 Ill. 2d 327, 332 (1984), for the proposition that the supreme court has “given effect to jury waivers made by defense counsel in defendant’s presence where defendant gave no indication of any objection to the court hearing the case.” The obvious problem with this argument is that defense counsel here never waived a jury trial and, indeed, Scott distinguished Frey on that basis.

2022App. 3d 988, 996 (1997) (finding a jury waiver ineffective where there was no indication that the non-English-speaking defendant who had no prior experience with the criminal justice system understood what a jury or its function was). 11 ¶ 38 Our determination of whether a defendant had the requisite knowledge to make a valid jury waiver “cannot rest on any precise formula.” Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d at 66 .

2020While a court is not required to give defendant any specific or prescribed admonishment to secure a valid jury waiver, the duty remains to ensure, at a minimum, that when a defendant waives the right to a jury trial, he or she “understand[s] *** that the facts of the case will be determined by a judge and not a jury.” Id. at 67, 69 .

2019App. 3d 548 , 549, 186 Ill.Dec. 459 , 616 N.E.2d 649 (1993) ("Vague references to a bench trial at the rescheduling conferences were not sufficient to constitute a valid jury waiver, especially in light of the fact that the record is devoid of evidence suggesting that the defendant was ever apprised of his right to a jury trial."). ¶ 16 We note that the record contains defendant's signed jury waiver.

2019App. 3d 548 , 549, 186 Ill.Dec. 459 , 616 N.E.2d 649 (1993) ("Vague references to a bench trial at the rescheduling conferences were not sufficient to constitute a valid jury waiver, especially in light of the fact that the record is devoid of evidence suggesting that the defendant was ever apprised of his right to a jury trial."). ¶ 16 We note that the record contains defendant's signed jury waiver.

2002Only by that means can a court of review determine whether the entry in the record reflects a valid jury waiver.” Smith , 106 Ill. 2d at 335 . “'If the claim is that the jury waiver was not made in open court or that it was not understandingly made, the record should be sufficient to cover all proceedings which involved the waiver.' ” Smith , 106 Ill. 2d at 335 , quoting People v. Oatis , 47 Ill.

2002Only by that means can a court of review determine whether the entry in the record reflects a valid jury waiver.” Smith, 106 Ill. 2d at 335 . “ ‘If the claim is that the jury waiver was not made in open court or that it was not understandingly made, the record should be sufficient to cover all proceedings which involved the waiver.’ ” Smith, 106 Ill. 2d at 335 , quoting People v. Oatis, 47 Ill.

2023See People v. Thornton, 363 Ill. App. 3d 481, 487 (2006) (“Considering each of defendant’s and his counsel’s several appearances in this case, it is undisputed that defendant was never present in open court when a jury waiver was discussed.”). ¶ 48 Nonetheless, we need not rely on Mr. Ortiz’s pretrial conduct to find a valid jury waiver in this case.

2020Thornton, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 488 .

1997As the Martinez court stated: "At least seven reasons have been given for this conclusion: First, the right to testify is seen as the kind of right that must be asserted in order to be recognized. [Citation.] Second, it is important that the decision to testify be made at the time of trial and that the failure to testify not be raised as an afterthought after conviction. [Citation.] Third, by advising the defendant of his right to testify, the court could influence the defendant to waive his right not to testify, 'thus threatening the exercise of this other, converse, constitutionally explicit

1997As the Martinez court stated: "At least seven reasons have been given for this conclusion: First, the right to testify is seen as the kind of right that must be asserted in order to be recognized. [Citation.] Second, it is important that the decision to testify be made at the time of trial and that the failure to testify not be raised as an afterthought after conviction. [Citation.] Third, by advising the defendant of his right to testify, the court could influence the defendant to waive his right not to testify, `thus threatening the exercise of this other, converse, constitutionally explicit

2025See, e.g., Hutt, 2023 IL 128170, ¶ 6 (“The trial court admonished defendant that he had the absolute right to a jury -6- 1-23-1317 trial and asked defendant if he intended to waive his right to a jury trial in both felony cases.”); People v. Scott, 186 Ill. 2d 283, 285 (1999) (“We have never found a valid jury waiver where the defendant was not present in open court when a jury waiver, written or otherwise, was at least discussed.”); Tooles, 177 Ill. 2d at 469-73 (in three consolidated appeals, without written jury waivers, each trial court addressed each defendant directly, which factored int