structural 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

2025The right to represent oneself is deemed so significant that its denial constitutes a structural error, one that “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, 613-14 (2010).

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

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

2025As such, we address defendant’s argument concerning structural error only and not error based on the second prong of plain error. ¶ 39 Structural error is a unique designation granted “only in a ‘very limited class of cases.’ ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 198 (2009) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999)).

2022In his response to our request for additional briefing, Owens offers no answer to this question. 12 ¶ 30 Structural error is a unique designation granted “only in a ‘very limited class of cases.’ ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 198 (2009) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999)).

2025“The United States Supreme Court has explained that ‘[t]he purpose of the structural error doctrine is to ensure insistence on certain basic, constitutional guarantees that should define the framework of any criminal trial.’ ” People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 29 (quoting Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286, 294-95 (2017)).

2025The United States Supreme Court has explained that ‘[t]he purpose of the structural error doctrine is to ensure insistence on certain basic, constitutional guarantees that should define the framework of any criminal trial.’ Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286, 294-95 (2017).

2024“The United States Supreme Court has explained that ‘[t]he purpose of the structural error doctrine is to ensure insistence on certain basic, constitutional guarantees that should define the framework of any criminal trial.’ ” People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 29 (quoting Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286, 294-95 (2017)); see also People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 12-13 (2010) (“An error is typically designated as ‘structural’ and requiring automatic reversal only if it necessarily renders a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or unreliable in determining guilt or innocence.”).

2023We disagree. ¶ 74 A structural error impairs a trial’s framework, resulting in a trial that is “fundamentally unfair or unreliable in determining guilt or innocence.” People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 12-13 (2010).

2026The State concedes that the court did not give defendant time to poll the jury but contends that jury polling is not a structural error under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine. ¶ 27 A defendant’s “right to request a polling of the jury is a safeguard that is designed to help ensure that the defendant is afforded an important constitutional right, i.e., juror unanimity.” People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 33 .

2026Instead of being a structural error, “[a]n error in polling a jury is better suited for harmless error analysis because there are other safeguards in place to ensure juror unanimity, including the circuit court’s instructions to the jurors that their verdict must be unanimous, the requirement that all jurors have individually signed the jury verdict form, and the requirement that the signed verdict form is returned and pronounced in open court in the presence of the jury.” Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 46 .

2022Structural error “def[ies] analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 309 .

2018Structural error is an error “ ‘affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.’ ” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991)).

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

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.

2025People v. Rivera, 227 Ill. 2d 1, 19-20 (2007). ¶ 40 Defendant argues that the alleged errors in the instant case are of great magnitude and rise to the level of structural error as a result.

2021See People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 608 (2010) (“Structural errors are systemic, serving to erode the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant’s trial.”) (Internal quotation marks omitted.); People v. Rivera, 227 Ill. 2d 1, 20 (2007) (holding a trial before a biased tribunal would constitute a structural error).

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.

2025See Recuenco, 548 U.S. at 218 n.2. ¶ 45 Lastly, defendant argues that posttrial counsel denied him effective assistance of counsel by failing to develop and present argument that the trial court committed structural error when the court denied defendant’s motion in limine and also described B.M. and S.P. as “ ‘victims’ ” during voir dire.

2021Examples of structural error 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.” Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 609 (citing Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 , 218 n.2 (2006)); see also Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8-10 (1999) (a jury instruction which omits an element of the offense does not rise to the level of structural error). “[M]erely failing to give a jury instruction defining an element of the offen

2026The -7- Johnson court held, for defendants to establish structural error at sentencing, and thus second- prong plain error, they must show how the error comports with the structural error analysis the court has developed in its prior decisions, most notably People v. Moon, 2022 IL 125959 .

2026See People v. Hunt, 2016 IL App (1st) 132979, ¶ 15 . -6- No. 1-23-1633 ¶ 21 Generally, Rule 401(a) violations are reviewable under the first prong of the plain error doctrine (People v. Ratliff, 2024 IL 129356, ¶ 43 ) and denial of counsel is a structural error reviewable under the second prong (People v. Moon, 2022 IL 125959, ¶¶ 28-29 ).

2023Nevertheless, because the denial of the right to a public trial is a structural error (see People v. Williams, 2016 IL App (3d) 130901, ¶ 18 ), defendant contends that the doctrine of plain error should avert the forfeiture (see People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010)). ¶ 13 The State’s initial response is that waiver has taken this contention beyond the reach of the plain-error doctrine.

2020Since a structural error is one that renders the trial fundamentally unfair or unreliable, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion at all times under a plain error analysis. - 13 - Id. ¶¶ 72-73; see also People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 , 931 N.E.2d 1184, 1187 (2010) (stating the defendant has the burden of persuasion under both prongs of the plain error doctrine).

2024People v. Bowens, 407 Ill.

2024People v. Bowens, 407 Ill.

2026See People v. Hunt, 2016 IL App (1st) 132979, ¶ 15 . -6- No. 1-23-1633 ¶ 21 Generally, Rule 401(a) violations are reviewable under the first prong of the plain error doctrine (People v. Ratliff, 2024 IL 129356, ¶ 43 ) and denial of counsel is a structural error reviewable under the second prong (People v. Moon, 2022 IL 125959, ¶¶ 28-29 ).

2025See People v. Ratliff, 2024 IL 129356 (discussing that even a structural error may not affect the fundamental fairness of a trial if it is harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt). ¶ 35 While we agree with counsel that there is no viable argument challenging the trial court’s holding, we would encourage the trial court to avoid similar situations in the future.

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.

2018In a dissent, Justice Holdridge found the trial court’s instruction lacked specificity and was confusing, and thus the “presumed prejudice *** justifie[d] a finding that the error was structural in nature.” McKinley, 2017 IL App (3d) 140752, ¶ 44 , 74 N.E.3d 482 (Holdridge, P.J., dissenting). ¶ 43 In this case, even if we agreed with defendant that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to view the video in the courtroom during deliberations, we find the alleged error does not rise to the level of structural error under the plain-error doctrine.

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

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

2017The majority steers around the holding in Clark (supra ¶ 51), maintaining that a second-prong plain error must still be “of a similar kind” as a structural error, meaning that it must be an error “ ‘affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself’ ” (Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991))).

2026“An error that is amenable to harmless error analysis is not a structural error” subject to second- prong plain error review, People v. Logan, 2024 IL 129054, ¶ 80 , and “[e]rroneous admission of evidence is subject to a harmless error analysis,” People v. Heineman, 2023 IL 127854, ¶ 95 ; see People v. Patterson, 217 Ill. 2d 407, 424 (2005) (determining that admission of grand jury testimony in violation of the confrontation clause was “more accurately described as a trial error” rather than a structural defect in the trial (internal quotation marks omitted)); People v. Temple, 2014 IL App (1s

2023See People v. Bever, 2019 IL App (3d) 170681, ¶¶ 33, 45-47 (trial judge’s consideration of his own son’s military experience when assessing the credibility of the witnesses did not rise to the level of structural error); People v. Temple, 2014 IL App (1st) 111653, ¶ 51 (“admission of prior consistent statements, hearsay testimony from police officers going beyond the scope of explaining police procedure, and prosecutorial misconduct in closing and rebuttal arguments, do not fall under the umbrella of structural error”); see also People v. Evans, 2021 IL App (2d) 200469-U, ¶ 27 (finding the imp

2025People v. Baez, 241 Ill. 2d 44, 115-16 (2011) (citing Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835 ).

2022Baez, 241 Ill.2d at 105 . ¶ 45 Defendant’s right to retained counsel of his or her choosing, however, is balanced against the trial court’s interest in trying the case with diligence and the orderly process of judicial -19- 1-16-1172 administration.

2019We wrote that "even if we agreed with [the] defendant that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to view the video in the courtroom during deliberations, we find the alleged error does not rise to the level of structural error under the plain-error doctrine." Id. ¶ 96 3.

2019We wrote that “even if we agreed with [the] defendant that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to view the video in the courtroom during deliberations, we find the alleged error does not rise to the level of structural error under the plain-error doctrine.” Id. ¶ 96 3.

2024See People v. Bever, 2019 IL App (3d) 170681, ¶¶ 33, 45-47 (trial judge’s consideration of his son’s experiences to assess the credibility of the witnesses does not - 18 - No. 1-22-0767 rise to the level of structural error).

2023See People v. Bever, 2019 IL App (3d) 170681, ¶¶ 33, 45-47 (trial judge’s consideration of his own son’s military experience when assessing the credibility of the witnesses did not rise to the level of structural error); People v. Temple, 2014 IL App (1st) 111653, ¶ 51 (“admission of prior consistent statements, hearsay testimony from police officers going beyond the scope of explaining police procedure, and prosecutorial misconduct in closing and rebuttal arguments, do not fall under the umbrella of structural error”); see also People v. Evans, 2021 IL App (2d) 200469-U, ¶ 27 (finding the imp

2017Structural error is found “where a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” Belknap, 2014 IL 117094, ¶ 48 .

2017See id. (contextual analysis of claims that the evidence is closely balanced). ¶ 27 Although not argued, we also find that the alleged error is not a structural error and that the circuit court’s decision with regard to the video did not affect the fairness of defendant’s trial, nor did it challenge the integrity of the judicial process.

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

2026Johnson, 2024 IL 130191, ¶ 55 . 15 ¶ 42 Second-prong plain error is a high hurdle and is only implemented in exceptional circumstances where, despite the absence of an objection, application of the rule is necessary to preserve the integrity and reputation of the judicial process.

2019However, even assuming error resulting from the trial judge's consideration of his son's Army experiences, it did not rise to the level of structural error. ¶ 46 Under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine, forfeiture is excused where "a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant's trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence." Piatkowski , 225 Ill. 2d at 565 , 312 Ill.Dec. 338 , 870 N.E.2d 403 .

2019However, even assuming error resulting from the trial judge's consideration of his son's Army experiences, it did not rise to the level of structural error. ¶ 46 Under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine, forfeiture is excused where "a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant's trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence." Piatkowski , 225 Ill. 2d at 565 , 312 Ill.Dec. 338 , 870 N.E.2d 403 .