the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest their trial court must consider reasonable alternatives other than closure and fourth the court must make that you know the tainting of a jury pool for example is an overriding interest now the state doesn't cite any case no annoying that says the protection of a minor is an overriding interest qualify and all four of those factors does not and you have a substantial right violation a new district decision regarding actually very similar to this case which was the turning off of microphones during a closing argument and in that case is the court stated so so of this court the right  in in my research in illinois correct and again even in this case this is a ten year old who was actually involved in the  this will qualify as substantial right violation  been under people the times and it's one of the fundamental rights of public trial has qualified in the four factors and needed a scenario where all four factors would be matched and a child situation that simply didn't happen here as we know you can tell from the paucity of the record here there's no adequate factual being in the court i don't want him hearing things and then he goes on to compliment his testimony and they went to the same elementary school and then going back to it i would rather not have him in here to see how it is go going to go if his debt would you r what i'm saying is in this case and specifically where you know this was actually an overriding interest and it was so important that the trial court would meet darn sure to make sure he was not in the courtroom for the state's initial closing argument that contains if you look at that initial closing argument at the state you know it doesn't hide any of the facts in this case i know that  omitting the first part of this about i'm noting fisher junior's in the courtroom and then stating i don't want that to be the case if i was in the court room i would not feel like it disobeyed the judge's order to take him out of the courtroom at exclude in the jury knows that witnesses cannot be in the court room for other people's testimony and so room there after hallway and then get your testimony and then you never see him again until closing argument next time you see all these witnesses savage in pushing junior is initial closing argument all the other witnesses are not here i don't want him to be here either so what i'm asking this court to hold for this first issue is that a new trial has to occur because a substantial right was violated that being the defendant's public trial right because the trial court here did not satisfy any of the four waller factors for a partial closure press t v ga makes that clear it only  is that the defend his constitutional rights were never implicated in this case because he never was a closure nor did it come to preclude the public or the press from entering the courtroom the only thing that this judge being was come to the conclusion that he didn't want his minor child sitting in the courtroom any longer than is absolutely necessary in noticed that it was in the court room after the state's closing argument was given i think you can tell from his language so that you looked up and saw him and thought you know i thought he would not be here  the defendant argues that the fact that he he didn't yet know that it was as if you know i understand that i don't really need my child in here either he didn't say that  because it is true that the denial of a public trial is a structural error if it happens but are certainly is it didn't happen the judge yeah yeah i don't know that i necessarily agree that that's closure but under those circumstances and yes did i think under these circumstances that there is justification  realize well the stance she pertaining to sex offense victims doesn't directly apply in this case but there is some logic that you know the purpose of that was to protect the child the focus can be the  say i don't think he's entitled to those instructions on reckless conduct because the facts don't support reckless conduct they support intentional acts and even if you believe his testimony that she had a knife in her hand that reward implies self defense not recklessness you don't punch another person in the face recklessly you do it  simple question could have been asked when this whole public trial right violation didn't happen and a new trial has to occur and i think also the state doesn't dispute  or i don't think there's a feeling that you could be presley made clear that a personal trial closure is in fact a public trial right violation that's binding united states supreme court precedent  least entitled to have his friends relatives and counsel present no matter what offense he may be in charge of that against their wish we just don't know what we know from the records that the child was in the courtroom as he was then kicked out of the courtroom at trial and given no choice to remain in the courtroom because the trial court demanded that he flat out and then demanded that you know be there  r turning briefly to the western clued instruction issue i don't think the state or anyone here is disagreeing or debating that reckless conduct under the charging instrument approach is a this analysis is of subsumed into the slate evidence analysis and we disagree with the state you know the state seemingly wants to take one version or the other person's version that's not what version there is the slight evidence we do not adjust the credibility at this stage people be donna makes that clear and it's then that record a new trial has to occur where it's presuming the same facts come out lesser included traction would have to be allowed and given