drive to appeal the score of affirm the judgments of convictions and sentences and in that opinion this court also found that the children statements that were given to other persons were reliable enough that they could be admissible under one fifteen ten of the code of criminal procedure the evidence at trial also showed that the defendant made statements to the police and painting himself in the crime which were consistent with the children statements and with their child testimony this was a bench trial that was conducted by before judge white following the drive to appeal the defendant made a holes conviction petition wherein he raised numerous claims that was dismissed originally at first stage in this course the first time that the on the better had made the gist of a meritorious claim regarding whether he was shackled during the proceedings without the requisite hearing ultimately the poles trial post conviction judge who is different from judge white because he failing to inject when judge white conducted in camera interviews with the children when attempting to ascertain if they should be allowed to testify via closed circuit television notably judge jones also did not find that judge white did anything wrong but simply that i am goldstein was in fact in failing to make a record judge jones also did not find that appellate counsel was in specific findings of fact based on the evidence she are hearing and therefore the standard of review should be to know before this court also i would suggest the standard of law should be to no because counsel for defendant or defendant suggest that this court should affirm on the basis different than judge jones of course finding that judge jones's decision about whether judge white did anything wrong w himself from the proceed ings after he can talk to this in camera and investigator in camera interview with the children there was never an issue that was raised in the post conviction detention and i don't believe that this course of the firm on any bas alleged victims the questioning and sussman of the children would have deferred leading to a decision to have the children testify on the same room as the fan in and that would have had to fact of forcing these children to testify truthfully and that the case where the trial judge howells x party communications with our going for me any of the attorneys all those communications he information that was gathered during those communications was used in bantering a decision on the guilt of the defendant first of all your i don't even believe this was an act part of communication the trial judge in this case informed that number was there a we supposed to know that we don't know that i know that the trial court knew there was nothing in it in the trial court record or anything that suggested that there was a transcript of what that if there was a couric were there if there that point in front of judge nobody cross examine him as to that one so i don't understand why the speculation is necessary i have the misfortune of anything as a prosecutor to try a number of these cases in the speculation that if defense counsel had been in the room somehow these kids would have been able to testify is a little farfetched because when you have multiple people in su in the room with him children i think judge white did exactly what he needs to do what reporter there and asked them questions minimizing the number of people in the room and defense counsel that certainly would have known that he might have intimidated child i agree wholeheartedly and just what specifically stated at the time that he was taking the children to question that the reason why he was taking them in to to interview them was to ascertain whether they could testify in front of the defendant nothing more nothing less there's not nothing to suggest there was anything else sad after that interview that went to guilt or innocence or the judge might consider anything  proper here and regarding prejudice the ultimate conclusion that had all these the laterals that achieved that the children would have somehow testified differently at the trial is just totally unsubstantiated one would have to assume that they lied or if the claim is that the children would have been so intimidated by the defendant that they were there then to afraid to testify and therefore he would have been acquitted obviously is not what this procedure is all or i as far as i know there was nothing that we could find to suggest that there was or if there was a court reporter that there were any proceedings that were available as the state points up in the reply brief there's only a very limited instances where there can be presumptive prejudice in a strike with analysis this is simply not one of those situations of course there are such forth and those interviews or for he stated it again at the evidence year hearing it was simply to determine whether or not the children could testify via close circuit television and nothing else and there's absolutely nothing to show that what the procedure was that he was going to use every day everybody agreed that that was the procedure that could be used and everybody knew what was going on this was not without to slowly the defendant in this case just agreed to a procedure and i don't this case simply would have been held harmless to any error would have been harmless and we cited the case of people versus like cher and our brave which the court there found that there was a specific constitutional ere are we're going to find it was unable to communicate with his counsel because he was not provided the radio when the children were testifying via closed circuit television the court found that there was a clear constitutional error in that case however the court found that it was harmless error where the children had given out of court statements to others which were admitted their child and also where the defendants gave in called the tory statements to the police we his conviction or low correctly granted post conviction relief where the record and the evidence showed that the trial judge rightly interviewed him interviewed child victims outside of the court in the middle of a bench trial have touched upon the fact that this court is called to review the judgment not the reasoning and so i agree the judge jones reasoning here was was faulty but that does not serve the ultimate conclusion here is at their work constitutional interviews and to allow a trial judge in the middle of a bench trial to take the victims aside and to talk to them with no record of the conversation or without a defense advocate present i think that's a presumptively prejudicial error at a curs is it possible that those convictions counsel never hands the court reporter to transcribe i honestly your honor i know the practice from our office is that we try to get every single date that we have on the record any time there's where you post conviction i was not i was not we do have that post conviction record is the same one that was under rect appeal which was handled i know the believe judge white are not believe him and i think the conclusion proxima conclusion that there was a constitutional error goes to finding judge white incredible and we have to there wasn't a co prejudicial and the illinois supreme court has already recognized that an inquiry outside of open court and outside the presence of the defendant this prejudicial air and that a defendant is not required to resort to extremist group to show that he has been prejudiced i counsel on without a record is like the practice of producing presuming prejudice in cases where there's a public trial violation we don't know what had been different what would have been different those circumstances and it's practically impossible to prove prejudice in those circumstances and yet we presume prejudice because the error is so just so great and so undermines the integrity of the process and the fairness of the process again it's the fact that these interviews were unrecorded and i believe that violate your you know rule just to conduct or make sure you remember the you know defendants constitutional rights i don't think you know the statute authorizes the court to just forget all those rules and those right and again the state actually points to the federal rule which kind of mirrors what we had here in illinois but interestingly the federal system the statute doesn't make explicit that any questioning has to be between the judge and the child victims has to be on  record with a prosecutor and defense counsel present so i think that federal rule just underscores the search in proper procedure that was carried out by judge white in this case and you don't think that white had any person said th however there is nothing in the record to suggest that anything but that happened and again we're going here is the leak so the judge made these findings but there was a constitutional error error here and so with that we have to assume that it wasn't fact the judge privately talking to the victims without anybody there without any means of reporting it and counsel was asleep at the wheel by not objecting to that making sure he was in there or there was some way of recording his conversation record made what the communication that was being challenged was so most fat it was the judge talking to his son and the defendant challenge that is being next party conversation that the defendant never explained do not have any there was no evidence whether or not the the judge and some are actually talking about the defendant's case and the son was assistant who was an assistant since attorney was not even assigned to the case or even the same unit that was trying to had to be notes to look at so you know the substance of the conversation and that's where you can determine this is by actually looking at what was communicated back and forth in this case we don't know we don't know what was interviews because the judge might actually says that was interviewing these the victims he decides that one is his final phase one from testifying so one of the children is not allowed to testify and the judge also mentions how one of the victims displayed anger so that he had talked to that child again later so again we're getting a sense that you know they weren't just talking about you know how  will their i'm not their presence in the courtroom would add that adversely affect them i think region which how the victims are dealing with very sensitive issues so i don't think we can say that their conversations were just sticking to that one beat when the record reveals that you know because of these conversations judge white was able to disqualify one of the victims and then comment on the other victims anger so thank you  that there is something to suggest that judge white had any conversations with the children about anything other than whether they be allowed to touch whether they could testify in front of their molesters conversations with the child with the children he could have asked judge white at the evidence here hearing what he specifically talked to the shoulder about if he talks to them about anything else than whether they can testify in front of the defendant he could have asked perhaps he got angry when the suggestion was made that he would be able to testify in front of us and that's what makes this clearly within the mouth a case there was a rocker there of what communication had transpired suggest that the communication with the children to ascertain whether they'd be able to testify in front of the defendant shouldn't been held publicly would defeat the purpose of the statue if the defiant is to be allowed to sit in the procedure where it's to be to be to determine if he if they can testify in front of him without making any sense whatsoever and of course the federal rules which are different problem this from illinois specifically find that these type in cameron's actions can be done when determining whether the children should be allowed to testify be a close circuit television yaf those federal rules do have in their rules pacifically that a court reporter is supposed to be present that the defense attorney should be present when i simply does not include that in the procedure to be used and in fact pastes at least  circuit television is to our right at the truth and allow the truth to come forth and thank you and i believe that that's exactly what occurred in this case that the statute which