may place the court counsel my name is katherine hart from the office of the state in springfield and i represent jonathan c b in champaign county the practice of bringing children to court in chains is so common that no one remarked upon jonathan shackles until it was time for him to testify oh you know we know that several ways specifically as jonathan right for jonathan got up to testify in court specifically said and i quote ok you may step up you may take off the shackles we also go by reference to jonathan's codefendant george w this george w is a petition for leave is currently pending before this court and one zero eight two seven eight george was not tried with jonathan but in george's record record also before he testified the trial court said that they could remove his shackles we also know that it's common practice to shackle juveniles and champagne county because of justice appleton's common descent and i quote and champagne county defendants where chains as a seeming matter of course furthermore the juvenile defense assessment which was published in two thousand and seven and which is cited in my brief notes that in half the counties surveyed juveniles entered the courtroom wearing sha this is a plane or a case yes the shaklee was not objected to nor preserved as air in any way but the preserved nature of this issue does not detract from the seriousness of the error which occurred in fact it emphasizes it because the routine shackling of detain juveniles is so pervasive throughout the state of illinois that it is rarely if ever objected to these are our children who we claim are not part of a criminal system for being tried in chains this court and the united states supreme court have stated in the strongest language possible using terms such as exceptional circumstances clear necessity and impermissible that abs is a claim that the state makes and it's brief but in fact the trial court was clearly aware that jonathan was shackled because the court is the one who said take off the shackles the fact that it's a bench trial is not important this court in away said that which was a bench trial that even when it's a bench trial you may not shackle a defendant absent an individualized determination of necessity  object under the plane air statute under the plane air standard both problems and plain error apply in the instant case because it was a closely balanced case with a clear clear error and the integrity of the judicial process was impacted by this error as numerous courts have held the use of shackles without a hearing undermines the integrity of the judicial process the trial courts of illinois are not listening to this court which has repeatedly told them that a defendant cannot be sha without first holding a hearing what does it say about our juvenile court system that many of the juveniles coming from detention are shackled as a matter of course aren't juveniles entitle to the same rights as adults doesn't the juvenile court acti sure in this particular case we know that jonathan was shackled because the trial court tells them to take off the shackles prior testify as i mentioned earlier we also know by reference to george w s record that pill is currently pending before the court the record site is in the pillay on page fifteen if you'd like me to repeat the number the the number i'm i'm happy to do so if you ask me we can consider in people versus al and the record was likewise scanty the electronic stunned stunned belt that the defendant was wearing in that case and this court did take notice of other cases that were pending and i believe that was will county in the second district  to find that this was occurring that it was the sheriff's or the detention centers in that case it was a jail it was their practice to bring defendants to court in the sunbelt i think there's certainly enough evidence in the record from jonathan's case from reference or george w case from the juvenile defense assessment and from just up instance where he notes that defendants are brought to court and he doesn't specif why are we shadowing to teen juveniles without an individualized determination of necessity if the proceedings they are appearing in are not criminal the pervasive shackling of children in court forces the question what is happening in the juvenile courts of illinois forty years ago in raif cheney this court stated we see no useful function to be obtained by adding still more formality into the juvenile process a jury trial with all the classic clamor of the adversary system that necessarily goes with it would certainly invest the juvenile proceeding with the appearance of a criminal trial and create in the mind and memory of the child the same effect as if it were what was in the mind and memory of jonathan see when his trial was over does he remember being charged with criminal sexual assault when the state decided to prosecute him what about when he was detained in the champagne kept county juvenile detention center then tried in shackles does he remember the state's case against him and testify correct what will be in his mind as he registers as a sex offender possibly for the rest of his life i think jonathan would be surprised to learn after the clash in clamor of the ever serious system that he experienced that he was not criminally prosecuted as of today wednesday january thirteenth two thousand and ten there are a number of statutes in the state of illinois that equate an adjudication of delinquency with a criminal conviction some of these statutes are not simply collateral such as sora this the sex offender registration there's also the escape statute and aggravated unlawful use of weapons when jennifer a juvenile adjudications are treated as convictions then juveniles have the worst of both worlds one which unlike their adult counterparts they are denied a right to a jury trial if there are genetic asians are deemed to prior criminal convictions that is what this court stated in people versus taylor juvenile prosecutions do not look exactly like adult prosecutions but they are criminal prosecutions nonetheless when the state files a delinquency prosecution it is a criminal prosecution where the juvenile is often detained in a jail or a detention center prior to trial then brought to court in chains tried with the assistance of coun and all the evidentiary rules of adult criminal prosecutions and if found guilty the juvenile may be sentenced to jail juvenile trials may be open to the media and juvenile d n a is harvested and stored in case of future criminal behavior like other subject to criminal prosecution juveniles convictions objects into higher penalties if he escapes from detention and juveniles must register sometimes for life on public registry is at nonpublic registries the juvenile court after rehabilitates children and subject may be subject to punishment after the age of twenty one so here why why jonathan sentences term when his sentences determine eight hundred twenty first birthday why then should we find that he has the right  says he does not have a right as in extended juvenile hearings he did he was not prosecuted under the extended juvenile jurisdiction statute this court can recognize the criminal nature of juvenile proceedings give juveniles the extra protection and safety of a jury trial where the juvenile chooses to particular state by jury and still maintain a separate juvenile court system for juveniles one is not exclusive of the j juveniles with adult sex offense but those groups receive adult criminal sentences right that's correct and that's a big difference is that in keeping with what justice b just an adult criminal sentence versus being in a juvenile detention facility until the age of twenty one there is a difference but jail is jail and not all adult criminal prosecutions look exactly the same some adults who are prosecuted with sex crimes don't receive jail at all or they receive small sentences the fact that but this juvenile never  criminal sex offenders never face ability of an adult criminal so that's correct that's credit and that's a pretty big distinction and it's a it is a distinction but that doesn't that doesn't negate the fact that jonathan was criminally prosecuted there there is a spectrum of some juveniles have you know they're subject to probation some adults are subject to probation some juveniles are subject to jail maybe not in an adult facility but gel nonetheless and some adults are subject to jail we can have a juvenile court system that recognizes that we essentially were criminally prosecuting you would federal jury process argument i don't believe that this court has truly looked at the at the juvenile jury trial right under article one section eight and what the specific arguments that were made in this people versus alan that it is the court's responsibility to control their courtroom and when it you know this case do that we should move ahead that was halfway through the trial your honor that the juvenile shackles we don't know all we know is that johnson shackles were not removed until he read before he testif as the court has noted the only reference in the record shackling occurs before respondent comes up to testify and what's important is immediately before that respondents cousin dustin as the completes her testimony and then respondents counsel asked the court the trial court if i could just have a few minutes outside judge then counsel comes back it's unknown whether respondent went with him or his counsel comes back and says i call the respondent the trial judge then says ok you may step up and when he steps up you may take off the shackles so you may go ahead and approach the bench the trial court in this case as soon as it became aware of the shackles or their removal and responded to not testify with those shackles on other people versus alan where this court held that unless the respondent and its respondents burden to show this and to provide the record to show th unless respondent can show that his ability to consult his counsel was compromised or the presumption of innocence was compromised the dignity of the proceedings was compromised if you've failed to object at trial that failure to a judge concert constitutes forfeiture of the issue in this court cannot review it before they shackle defendants in that case it was a juvenile but the court also noted that the presumption of innocence is not the only reason for that for a for asking courts to conduct  evidence and again respondent has failed to provide the court with a record that shows that it's routine practice or that he was unable to consult with his counsel furthermore responding has failed will charge of the jury trial issue respondent by asking this court to hold that the juvenile court act requires that juveniles are entitled to a jury trial under the u illinois i cause attrition in the united states constitution is asking this court to overturn controlling precedent which holds that neither constitutions require jury trials and she will delinquency proceedings infant cheney am presently this court h juveniles have no due process right to a jury trial because juvenile proceedings are fundamentally different from criminal prosecutions in mckeever the united states supreme court confront armed the holding and stated that a jury trial is not an essential component of due process for juveniles and therefore it is not fundamentally unfair to deny them a jury trial and just last may and cannot see this court reaffirmed mckeever and held th juveniles treasured sex offenses have no one to process right to a jury trial for the past ten years since the amendments and since the dissent in juneau this court has consistently construed juvenile delinquency proceedings under the act as remaining fundamentally different from criminal prosecutions counsel yes with regard to the offense if you like in this particular matter it's a sexual offense and there are collateral consequences lifetime reporting and things like that just as under the criminal code what you just don't you think that the juvenile should have an opportunity to have a jury trial under those circumstances is out after the punishment is made at the age of twenty one or of the years is is that they still have to go have a lifetime of reporting no we are on the registry as a square holding can execute the registration requirements on juveniles are simply not as burdensome as they are in adults first of all  respondents registration information is not available to the general public it is only just closed to school officials and persons that perhaps could be harmed by by him in the future so in that respect the legislature has again distinguished juveniles from adults and therefore as this court has held juvenile delinquency proceedings are fundamentally different from criminal prosecutions and furthermore that that this rehabilitated date of purpose remains a cheap goal of the act that is more important important in juvenile proceedings that are criminal prosecutions in these past ten years this court has repeatedly interpreted the act as such and the legislature has done nothing to change that interpretation thus the principles of stare decisis apply especially here were interpreting a statute and this court should reject respondants invitation to overturn its prior differences between juvenile trials and criminal prosecutions this court noted all these differences in the right age and connects key it's important that in this case the impact on respondents liberty was simply not the same as it would have been for an adult an adult convicted of criminal sexual assault and attempted robbery would have received descendants of four to fifteen years for the a sub social sought consecutive chair to four years for the attempt robbery and importantly plus at least three years and life and m s r term because of the criminal sexual assault he would be in the department of corrections and he would have limits on when you could obtain parole in contrast respondants maximum sentence of five years for two violent crimes in the department of justice juvenile justice which is statutor required to provide individualized treatment to periodically reexamined juveniles to belt plans for their treatment and provide them that they also provide them the continuous opportunity for parole and they can continuously seek to terminate their worship in this regard and many others said in our brief juveniles are simply not the same as adults and they do not face the same severe consequences juveniles have or trial courts are vested with a broader role in juvenile prosecutions or proceedings excuse me they they can direct the filing of a petition to the state's attorney and they are meant they are intended to guards of minors interest all simply don't face the same consequences and responded in particular did not face the same consequences as as an adult would have he did not have an adult sentence imposed on him fundamentally different from criminal prosecutions in presley decided approximately nine months later the juvenile again argued under article one section eight that juveniles have a right a jury trial the press the court stated that that argument was foreclosed by the opinion and cheney and the opinion for cheney states that juvenile proceedings are fundamentally different from criminal prosecutions if they're fundamentally different from criminal prosecutions there's no way they could qualify as a criminal prosecution under article one section eight and therefore that decision applies and that i missouri specifically stated there were three reasons not to shock without hearing the first is that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty and shackles under undermine that presumption the second one is the defendant's ability to communicate with counsel and the third one is that it undermines the integrity of the judicial process the court said the price index versus misery the practice will often have negative effects but like the consequences of compelling a defendant to wear prison clothing or forcing him to stand trial while medicated those effects cannot be shown from a trial transcript as i pointed out my reply re juno that jonathan had a calm and even speaking voice while testifying something which was commented on by the trial court in a negative way we don't know that his flat africa wasn't because he was shackled i think justice appleton's just sent in the opinion in the from the fourth district most cogently expresses the problems with shackling a juvenile regardless of whether the trial saw from the second he walked into the courtroom or not and that is how does he how does he know that the trier of fact is making is a rational empire impartial trial or a fact who genuinely presumes he is innocent until the state and reasonable doubt he was a child who was brought to court and tried in chains that is not something that this court has ever allowed it since staley and people vs blues this court as stated in the strongest possible language that a defendant should not be shackled when brush a trial without an individualized determination of necessity that was not done in this case that's a possibility we don't know but if if that is in fact true then what you are saying it turns out for food in every case you should in every case say is this again your honor we believe that this is just for the per se rule is in place for juveniles because of the specific nature think you understand my question i do understand your question i wanted to first say that we're asking for the per se rule just for juveniles  and when this trial court in the juvenile court saw the juvenile defendant you know it's a juvenile and i think it although we don't know absolutely from certain from the record whether this trial court knew if jonathan was shackled from the second he brought was brought to court i think it's a little disingenuous if these are not huge courtrooms and juveniles shackled it's fairly obvious that they're  shackled but yes in all juvenile cases the trial court should have a duty to hold a hearing with with or without objection when a juvenile is shackled to trial in the work should if this court has no further question