2023 IL App (1st) 200996 

SIXTH DIVISION

June 9, 2023 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

No. 1-20-0996 

 ) 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the 

 ) Circuit Court of 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. 

 ) 

v. ) No. 14 CR 17402 

 ) 

BRADY FRANKLIN, ) Honorable 

 ) Kenneth J. Wadas, 

Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding. 

 ) 

PRESIDING JUSTICE MIKVA delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

Justices C.A. Walker and Tailor concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

OPINION

¶ 1 Following a bench trial, Brady Franklin was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual 

assault and aggravated kidnaping and sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison. On appeal, Mr. 

Franklin argues that the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion to allow the complaining 

witness, an adult with documented intellectual disabilities, to testify via closed-circuit television. 

He asserts that the portion of section 106B-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) 

(725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 2018)), permitting the court to authorize such procedures for adult 

accusers with intellectual disabilities, is facially unconstitutional. Allowing such accusers to testify 

remotely, he argues, runs afoul of the right of criminal defendants to be confronted with the 

witnesses against them and goes beyond the limited exception to that right for child victims of 
No. 1-20-0996

- 2 - 

sexual abuse established by the United States Supreme Court in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 

(1990). 

¶ 2 Mr. Franklin argues in the alternative that even if section 106B-5 might be constitutional 

for some adult accusers, it was unconstitutionally applied in this case for two reasons. First, he 

asserts that the complaining witness “was both more functional in society than most intellectually 

disabled adults and would not have suffered any long-term emotional trauma from testifying in 

[his] presence.” Second, he contends that the specific procedure employed by the trial court in his 

case—where he, rather than the complaining witness, was the person segregated from the 

courtroom—was “the opposite procedure” from the one authorized by section 106B-5 and, thus, 

violated both the statute itself and his fundamental right to be present at all critical stages of the 

prosecution. We consider and reject each of these arguments and affirm Mr. Franklin’s conviction. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 4 Brady Franklin was charged by indictment with multiple counts of aggravated criminal 

sexual assault, aggravated kidnaping, and aggravated battery. The charges stemmed from events 

involving Mr. Franklin’s estranged wife, S.R., who alleged that he abducted, beat, and repeatedly 

raped her over the span of several days in late July 2014. 

¶ 5 A. The State’s Pretrial Motion to Permit Testimony by Closed-Circuit Television

¶ 6 On February 20, 2018, the State moved to allow S.R. to testify by closed-circuit 

television, pursuant to section 106B-5 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (West 2016)). Section 

106B-5 allows for the testimony of “a person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual 

disability,” to be taken outside the courtroom and shown via closed-circuit television upon a 

judicial determination that requiring the witness to testify in the courtroom would result in such 

“serious emotional distress” that the witness would not be able to reasonably communicate or 
No. 1-20-0996

- 3 - 

would cause the witness to suffer “severe adverse effects.” Id. § 106B-5(a)(2). This procedure is 

only available “in the prosecution of an offense of criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal 

sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual abuse, aggravated 

criminal sexual abuse, aggravated battery, or aggravated domestic battery.” Id. If the defendant 

represents himself pro se, the procedure is not available. Id. § 106B-5(g).

¶ 7 The State explained in its motion that S.R. suffered from sickle cell anemia and had been 

prescribed medication in the past for anxiety, panic disorder, depression, and post-traumatic stress 

disorder. She had also been sexually abused repeatedly between the ages of 9 and 15 and was 

physically and mentally abused by her mother, who was a drug addict. S.R. herself had also 

“battled addiction throughout her life.” 

¶ 8 According to the State’s motion, S.R. also had a profound intellectual disability. The State 

attached to its motion a cognitive evaluation of S.R. conducted by Dr. Lori Tall at Rush 

Neurobehavioral Center in Skokie, Illinois, on January 28, 2018. According to Dr. Tall’s report, 

on the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale, S.R. obtained a full-scale IQ of 57, which Dr. Tall 

characterized as “extremely low and consistent with individuals diagnosed with an intellectual 

impairment.” According to the results of the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, S.R.’s 

reading, spelling, and basic math skills were at kindergarten level. S.R. also received an overall 

score of 50 (below the first percentile), which is “in the impaired range of functioning,” on the 

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale. This result suggested to Dr. Tall that, overall, S.R. was 

“functioning at a level typically seen in someone much younger” (8 to 10 years of age) and required 

“a significant amount of support to function, adapt, and cope with the demands of adulthood.” 

¶ 9 Dr. Tall noted in her report that S.R. had not been employed and that, prior to dropping out 

of high school in the ninth grade, she had received special education services for “learning issues 
No. 1-20-0996

- 4 - 

and not being able to read.” Dr. Tall wrote that S.R. had four children and eight grandchildren, all 

of whom lived outside of the home. S.R. did not drive and needed assistance navigating public 

transportation. The doctor further explained that S.R. resided with her boyfriend, who provided “a 

great deal of care and support for her,” including preparing her meals and completing all the 

household chores. 

¶ 10 Dr. Tall described S.R. as friendly and talkative at the outset of her session. She was 

“generally happy, relaxed and positive.” However, when the conversation shifted to the events 

involving Mr. Franklin, “she became very dysregulated,” was “sad and tearful,” and “had a 

difficult time communicating her thoughts and emotions.” 

¶ 11 In the report’s summary, Dr. Tall wrote that S.R. had “severe cognitive and adaptive 

difficulties” and that her cognitive profile included “impairments in cognitive functioning, 

academic abilities, learning and memory, processing speed, and adaptive functioning,” all of which 

were consistent with a moderate intellectual disability. The doctor further explained that while 

S.R. “does not look any different from other adults her age,” it was important for those interacting 

with her to understand that “developmentally she [was] approximately eight to 10 years old 

(cognitively and emotionally) and academically, she function[ed] at the level of a typical five to 

six year old.” Dr. Tall opined that S.R. would “require a significant level of support” to participate 

in Mr. Franklin’s trial, including “someone to assist with translating complex concepts and to 

ensure she fully underst[ood] questions.” 

¶ 12 The State asserted in its motion that Dr. Tall’s cognitive report and professional medical 

opinion established that S.R. was moderately disabled and that she therefore came within the 

classes of individuals that section 106B-5 of the Code is intended to protect. “Given the diagnosis 

and fragile condition of [S.R.],” the State summarized, “it is the professional medical opinion of 
No. 1-20-0996

- 5 - 

Dr. Tall that the psychosocial stressor of a face to face confrontation with the Defendant will result 

in serious emotional distress such that she cannot reasonably communicate and severe emotional 

distress that is likely to cause her to suffer severe adverse effects.”

¶ 13 On July 11, 2018, Mr. Franklin filed a motion to exclude testimony by closed-circuit 

television, arguing that such testimony would violate his right to confrontation as guaranteed by 

the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution. Mr. Franklin argued that the legislative 

intent behind section 106B-5 was to protect child victims and that it had “never been used in the 

case of an adult complaining witness.” Broadening the scope of that provision to apply to adults, 

Mr. Franklin asserted, would impermissibly interfere with his constitutional right to face his 

accuser. Mr. Franklin described S.R. in his motion as “a mother of four and grandmother of eight 

and the sole caretaker of her household.” He argued that she was a “habitual user of crack cocaine” 

during the past 15 years, as evidenced by several drug arrests and convictions since 2000. Mr. 

Franklin also highlighted a 2009 conviction for class 3 felony forgery, and he alluded to statements 

made by S.R.’s probation officer, who communicated that she did not think S.R. had a mental 

illness but that she “struggle[d] with anger issues.” 

¶ 14 B. The Hearing on the State’s Motion 

¶ 15 On November 14, 2018, the circuit court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion to allow 

S.R. to testify under the special procedures outlined in section 106B-5. At oral argument, the State 

explained that the hearing lasted “the better part of a day.” The transcript from the hearing, which 

is in the record, runs nearly 50 pages. 

¶ 16 At the hearing, the State called two witnesses: Dr. Lori Tall, the clinical psychologist who 

had evaluated S.R. and whose report the State had attached to its motion, and Maria Godinez, a 

victim specialist at the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office who had met with S.R. several times 
No. 1-20-0996

- 6 - 

and could testify to S.R.’s “inability to communicate” when discussing the allegations against Mr. 

Franklin. 

¶ 17 Dr. Tall testified that she was a clinical psychologist with 20 years of experience. Before 

starting her own private practice in February 2018, she served as the Clinical Director of the 

Neurobehavioral Center at Rush University Medical Center (Rush). Dr. Tall confirmed that on 

January 28, 2018, while still at Rush, she had met with and conducted an evaluation of S.R. She 

explained that she examined S.R. and produced a report at the behest of the State’s Attorney’s 

Office, who paid her a fee of $1000 to “determine her overall levels of cognitive and adaptive 

functioning.” On cross examination, Dr. Tall stated that the evaluation of S.R. was the first and 

only time she met with S.R., but that their encounter lasted approximately four hours. 

¶ 18 The State asked Dr. Tall to describe S.R.’s demeanor when she first met her and Dr. Tall 

explained that “she was very nervous about going through the evaluation and uncertain about what 

we would be doing.” S.R. was accompanied by a social worker and an investigator, who “she felt 

very comfortable with.” Since she “was unable to transition away from” being with these two 

support team members, Dr. Tall permitted them to sit in the room during the evaluation on the 

condition that they stayed quiet and did not attempt to answer any questions or clarify any

responses for S.R. Dr. Tall explained that it was typical for her to allow the individuals she 

examined to have support people present with them, as “it’s with a population of children and 

adults who are highly anxious and/or have cognitive disabilities or some type of medical issue that 

makes it hard for them to function independently.” 

¶ 19 At the beginning of her interview, Dr. Tall learned that S.R. was 47 years old and that she 

had dropped out of school after her freshman year of high school. S.R. told Dr. Tall that she 

received support throughout her educational career for “not knowing how to read, write, or perform 
No. 1-20-0996

- 7 - 

math problems.” The State asked if S.R. was literate and Dr. Tall explained that one of the tests 

she administered during her examination of S.R. was the Woodcock-Johnson Test which measures 

educational achievement. That test revealed that while S.R. could identify all the letters of the 

alphabet and identify sounds, her overall reading scores were at kindergarten level.

¶ 20 The State then asked Dr. Tall about S.R.’s daily life skills. Dr. Tall explained that S.R. 

resides with her boyfriend who “basically takes care of her can completes chores and cooking.” 

He also helps her get to appointments and navigate public transportation, as she does not drive and 

gets nervous using public transportation on her own because she cannot read all the signs. Dr. Tall 

further testified that S.R. has never lived independently, without the presence of another adult in

the household. 

¶ 21 The State then asked if they discussed the incident involving Mr. Franklin at any point 

during the evaluation. Dr. Tall said yes and explained that when the topic of conversation turned 

to Mr. Franklin’s alleged crimes, S.R. “became highly emotional, fearful. It was really hard for her 

to communicate her thoughts and ideas. At one point she shut down and just was crying. She 

wasn’t able to answer my questions or describe the events at that point in time. She just asked to 

go home.” Dr. Tall explained that it took about 30 minutes to calm S.R. down and get her to a 

place where she was able to complete the evaluation. S.R.’s demeanor experienced a “significant 

change” once Dr. Tall told her that she would not ask any more questions about the incident 

involving Mr. Franklin. Dr. Tall testified that once S.R. was calmed down, “[e]ven though she 

functions at a fairly low level, she is able to answer basic questions. She has a sense of humor. She 

can be engaging, so she was able to return to that level of functioning with support.” 

¶ 22 The State then asked a series of questions about the tests Dr. Tall administered. The first 

test discussed was the “Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale” (WAIS) which Dr. Tall explained is a 
No. 1-20-0996

- 8 - 

“standardized measure of intellectual functioning or problem-solving abilities in adults” that is 

typically administered beginning at the age of 16. The test consists of four different sections: verbal 

comprehension, perceptional reasoning, processing speed, and working memory and produces an 

overall IQ score. Dr. Tall testified that S.R. scored an overall “full-scale IQ” of 57 on the WAIS,

which is “beneath the first percentile in the impaired range of functioning.” S.R.’s score of 57 

“means that she is functioning at a very low level,” as anything below 70 is considered an 

intellectual disability. Such a low score, Dr. Tall explained, would make it “very hard” for her to 

gain employment or graduate high school without a significant amount of special education 

support. Dr. Tall further testified that “it would be challenging for her to function completely 

independently as a normal adult would.” 

¶ 23 The State then asked Dr. Tall about the Woodcock-Johnson Test, which Dr. Tall described 

as a measure of academic achievement that focuses on skills like reading, spelling, and math. Dr. 

Tall testified that the results of the Woodcock-Johnson test suggested that S.R. reads and writes at 

kindergarten level. She was able to write her own name, but not much else. As for her math skills, 

S.R. was able to add and subtract single digits, but that was all. 

¶ 24 The next test discussed was the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale, which Dr. Tall 

described as a “measure of adaptive functioning.” She explained that the scale measures “your 

ability to apply your intelligence to your life” (i.e. social skills, communication abilities, hygiene 

and chores, overall functioning in the community). S.R. obtained an overall score of 50, which “is 

beneath the first percentile” and in the impaired range. Dr. Tall explained that while “[S.R.] has 

some higher level skills in her ability to socialize and interact” overall she has very limited skills, 

which makes it hard for her to complete the tasks required to live independently. Overall, Dr. Tall 

testified, “she functions at the age range of 8 to 10 years.” 
No. 1-20-0996

- 9 - 

¶ 25 The State asked Dr. Tall if, after administering all of the tests, she had an opinion as to 

whether S.R. suffered from an intellectual disability. Dr. Tall responded that she did, and that it 

was her opinion that S.R. met the criteria for a moderate intellectual disability under the Diagnostic 

Statistical Manual (DSM).

¶ 26 The State then shifted to the topic of S.R.’s emotional state, revisiting what Dr. Tall stated 

earlier about S.R. shutting down emotionally when the topic of Mr. Franklin came up. The State 

asked: “You said at one point that she shut down. Can you explain exactly what that looked like 

specific to [S.R.] and in comparison to maybe someone functioning without an intellectual 

disability?” Dr. Tall responded as follows: 

“Yes. So I think that when [S.R] became emotional, like when we all become emotional, 

emotions floods the brain and it impacts our ability to communicate and to problem solve 

and to process information. And I think what’s particularly challenging for [S.R.] is given 

that she does not have the cognitive reserve that a normal functioning person in the 

population would have, it really disallows her to even communicate. I mean, she was really 

only able to cry like to communicate, you know, like a function that I understood she was 

sad and upset and this was very hard for her to talk about. She also became somewhat 

disorganized and really I think had a fight or flight response where she just kept saying ‘I 

just want to go home. I just want to go home. I just want to go home.’ And I think that's 

where she felt safest in the world. And so I think at that point that’s why I backed away 

and we stopped, you know, kind of engaging in the conversation about the events.” 

The State then asked Dr. Tall directly what her opinion was as to S.R.’s ability to participate in 

Mr. Franklin’s criminal trial and Dr. Tall stated: “I think it is very limited given the emotional 

response she has to—and the impact it has on her language and problem solving abilities and
No. 1-20-0996

- 10 - 

comprehension skills when she gets emotional.” The doctor continued, “if she was in the 

courtroom with other people that are present, including the man accused in this crime, I think that 

she would not be able to function.” Without special accommodations, Dr. Tall predicted, S.R. 

would “end up just being highly emotional and crying and probably not even fully comprehending 

the questions or she would lose the ability to really express herself.” 

¶ 27 The State next called Maria Godinez, a victim specialist at the Cook County State’s 

Attorney’s Office. Ms. Godinez explained that her job was to serve as a liaison between the state’s 

attorneys and the victims. She testified that she met with S.R. in person in her office 5 to 10 times 

while the case against Mr. Franklin was pending. Ms. Godinez further explained that she had to 

always make sure to schedule her meetings with S.R. on dates where nothing was happening in 

Mr. Franklin’s case, because S.R. was “extremely fearful of running into the defendant” at the 

courthouse. 

¶ 28 Ms. Godinez testified that during her conversations with S.R., she tried “[o]n many 

occasions” to discuss Mr. Franklin’s alleged crimes, but that whenever the topic came up, S.R. 

would “breakdown and go into crisis.” She described these crises as S.R. crying, shaking, and 

experiencing panic attacks. When this would happen, Ms. Godinez “would try to make her feel 

comfortable and safe” and “[l]et her know that the defendant was nowhere near” and that they 

would “work through it step by step.” Ms. Godinez explained that once S.R. got worked up, it 

would take a while to calm her back down and “it would take some hugging, some physical contact 

in order to hold her to try to bring her back to a normal state.” Ms. Godinez recalled one incident 

in particular where S.R. became so unsettled that she began to have breathing issues and she “kept 

saying she was going to pass out.” Ms. Godinez thought she would have to seek medical assistance, 

but eventually, after holding her and giving her some water, she was able to calm S.R. down. Ms. 
No. 1-20-0996

- 11 - 

Godinez testified that, despite these difficulties, over the four years she had been meeting with 

S.R., she was eventually able to talk about the facts of the incident “to some extent.” 

¶ 29 The trial court then examined S.R. in camera to make its own assessment of her 

psychological, emotional, and intellectual levels. The State and Mr. Franklin’s counsel were 

present for that examination, but Mr. Franklin was not. The judge began by explaining to S.R. that

“Brady Franklin is not coming in here.” He then introduced her to the people who would be present 

during questioning. The judge explained that he wanted to see her answer a few questions to gauge 

if she could handle testifying in open court. S.R. told the court that she was scared at the prospect 

of testifying, and the court explained that Mr. Franklin was “locked up. He’s in custody. He’s not 

going anywhere.” The court asked if she had any questions, and she responded that she did not. 

¶ 30 The State then asked S.R. if she would feel any safer testifying in the courtroom knowing 

that there would be sheriff’s deputies present to secure Mr. Franklin and she said no. The State 

followed up by asking if S.R. would be able to talk about the case if she was in a different room 

from Mr. Franklin, and S.R. responded, “[y]es, ma’am. I would feel much better.” She was then 

excused from the courtroom. 

¶ 31 At the conclusion of the hearing, the State argued that it had established both “prongs” of 

the section 106B-5 requirements. Through Dr. Tall’s testimony, it had established that S.R. suffers 

from an intellectual disability. Through Ms. Godinez’s testimony, as well as S.R.’s “own answers 

and presentation,” it had established that if S.R. were required to testify in open court in the 

presence of Mr. Franklin, she would essentially be unable to communicate what happened to her. 

Thus, the State asserted, in the interest of justice, S.R. should be permitted to testify in “the safest 

type of environment,” which, based on her fragile emotional state and documented intellectual 

disability, “would not be in an open courtroom in the presence of the defendant.” 
No. 1-20-0996

- 12 - 

¶ 32 Defense counsel responded that the courtroom was a safe environment and that Mr. 

Franklin would be secured at all times by the sheriff’s deputies. Counsel also noted that S.R. was 

on social security disability for sickle cell anemia, not for any intellectual disability, and that while 

her IQ was indeed low, she was capable of basic math skills and, as Dr. Tall’s report suggested, 

she could engage in conversation and was capable of answering questions. Counsel also stated that 

“all victims or alleged victims of a crime are fearful and emotional” but that this concern must be 

weighed against Mr. Franklin’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. 

¶ 33 In reply, the State explained that it agreed with defense counsel’s statement that all victims 

of crime have reasons to be fearful of the defendants alleged to have committed those crimes, but 

that Dr. Tall’s testimony showed that S.R.’s condition “rises to a different level”; her “intellectual

deficits” contribute to an inability to “overcome that discomfort and overcome that fear and still 

be able to testify and communicate.”

¶ 34 In announcing its ruling, the court began by noting that it was tasked with balancing Mr. 

Franklin’s confrontation rights with “the victim’s right to not have an emotional breakdown in the 

course of a trial.” The court then stated that it had been persuaded that S.R. was “affected by a 

developmental disability” and that she was “profoundly moderately or severely intellectually 

disabled,” such that she should be permitted to testify outside of Mr. Franklin’s presence. 

“[E]motionally, she’s a wreck. There is no question about that,” the court observed. “I don’t even 

think it’s a close call.” Based on what it had seen during its own examination of S.R., the court 

also observed that in its view, allowing her to testify in the courtroom might actually be prejudicial

to Mr. Franklin. Due to the high likelihood that S.R. would experience an emotional breakdown 

while testifying, the court wondered whether “it might be to [Mr. Franklin’s] advantage that she 

testify from a location away from the inside of the well of the courtroom.” The court then granted 
No. 1-20-0996

- 13 - 

the State’s motion, ruling that, “[t]he victim will be allowed to testify from my chambers and via 

a closed circuit television consistent with the statute.” 

¶ 35 C. Trial

¶ 36 1. The State’s Case

¶ 37 At Mr. Franklin’s bench trial, which began on August 29, 2019, the State called S.R. as its 

first witness. During S.R.’s examination, she testified in open court while Mr. Franklin was secured 

behind the courtroom in the deputies’ area where he watched the proceedings via a television feed. 

Present with Mr. Franklin was one of his attorneys, who was able to communicate with his lead 

defense counsel, who was in the courtroom, by text message. We note that this arrangement is not 

what the court had authorized when it ruled on the State’s motion. In that ruling, the court had said 

S.R. would testify via a closed-circuit television from his chambers, while Mr. Franklin would 

presumably remain in the courtroom. The record provided to this court does not reflect how and 

when the decision was made to remove Mr. Franklin from the courtroom rather than S.R., nor does 

it reflect who requested this change or any specific objection by Mr. Franklin to this change. 

¶ 38 S.R. testified that she was 49 years old and that, at the time of the events in question, she 

was married to Mr. Franklin and lived with him and his daughter, Breanna. She had four children 

of her own, all of whom were fathered by another man who had passed away in 2009. She did not 

recall how long she was married to Mr. Franklin, nor could she recall with any specificity how she 

had met him. She explained that she stopped living with Mr. Franklin in early July 2014 because 

of an incident where he had kicked her in the face with his boot, and “blacked [her] eye.” The 

incident led her to move a few blocks away, where she stayed with her aunt and uncle. The State 

then asked S.R. about the events of July 20, 2014. 

¶ 39 S.R. testified that sometime that day, Breanna and Breanna’s brother, Brandon, had come 
No. 1-20-0996

- 14 - 

over to S.R.’s house, to tell her that Mr. Franklin wanted to see her. After they left, she put on 

clothes and went to the store. It was dark outside by the time she left for the store, which she said 

was just a block away. She bought cigarettes and was heading back towards her aunt’s house where 

she lived when she “felt something sticking me in my back” and heard Mr. Franklin’s voice telling 

her not to move, just to keep walking. 

¶ 40 S.R. testified at length about what happened next, describing how Mr. Franklin took her 

back to his house and held her captive for three days. In that time, he tied her to a chair, shaved 

her head, beat her with a pole, dropped a brick on her feet, and repeatedly and forcibly penetrated 

her—vaginally, anally, and orally—with his penis. S.R. testified that Mr. Franklin told her that she 

was “not going to look pretty for nobody no more,” that he was digging a hole to bury her in, and

that she would not see her family again. She was finally able to escape when a friend of hers, 

accompanied by the police, came looking for her. 

¶ 41 Tanavia Williams corroborated certain aspects of S.R.’s account, although her testimony 

differed from S.R.’s in some key details. Ms. Williams testified that she lived in the same building

where S.R. was staying and was present on July 20 when two kids, a boy and a girl, between the 

ages of five and fifteen, came looking for S.R., saying that something was wrong with their father. 

S.R. left with the two kids and, a few days later when she had not returned and no one had heard 

from her, Ms. Williams, accompanied by her mother and cousin, went to Mr. Franklin’s house to 

look for S.R. Mr. Franklin told them S.R. was not there, but Ms. Williams saw S.R. waving her 

hand from a window. S.R. managed to run out of the house then, and Ms. Williams’s mother called 

the police, who arrived with an ambulance shortly thereafter. 

¶ 42 The State also called Breanna and Brandon Franklin, who were 11 and 9 years old, 

respectively, at the time of the events in question. They also corroborated part, but not all, of what 
No. 1-20-0996

- 15 - 

S.R. had testified to. Breanna testified that, on July 20, 2014, she remembered going with her little

brother to pick up S.R. from a house a few blocks away after her father had told them to. S.R. 

eventually came out and walked back with the children to Mr. Franklin’s house. She testified that 

when they first arrived, “[e]verything was all cool for like a little while. I’d say five minutes” 

before her father and S.R. started arguing. She recalled, “[h]e told her to go to the basement. She 

was like no. She didn’t want to go down there. She was scared. And he pushed her down there, 

and they went to the basement.” 

¶ 43 Breanna was not sure about what happened in the basement, as she and her brother 

remained in the kitchen playing a computer game, but she recalled hearing the sound of a metal 

pipe hitting the cement floor and S.R. screaming. At this point, she and her brother looked at each 

other and “we both got scared.” Her father then called her downstairs and told her to bring some 

ice, which she did. She “really didn’t see nothing” when she entered the basement, but she saw 

S.R. sitting in a chair and she noticed a pipe on the floor. She described S.R. as “like having a 

scared look on her face like she was terrified or something, but she didn’t say nothing to me.” She 

gave her father the ice and went back upstairs. She testified that about 10 minutes later, he called 

for more ice. On her way back upstairs, he then asked for her to bring down scissors, which she 

brought him, and then went back to the kitchen. Sometime later, S.R. came upstairs and “she didn’t 

have no hair.” “It looked like she’d been crying, and she still had a terrified look on her face.” 

¶ 44 Breanna also recalled S.R. calling her into the bathroom, pulling up her pant leg, and 

showing her a bruise on her thigh. S.R. told her that Mr. Franklin had hit her with the pipe and had 

tied her up in the basement. Mr. Franklin then came into the bathroom and told Breanna to leave. 

Sometime later, S.R. and Mr. Franklin came out of the bathroom and went to the bedroom, where 

Breanna heard them “having intercourse.” She then went to sleep in her room with Brandon. The 
No. 1-20-0996

- 16 - 

following morning, Brandon woke her up because the police were outside. “When I went outside, 

I seen [S.R.] run past me. And she ran out the gate, and she was like help me, help me, screaming 

and stuff. And I could like see the bruises clear as day now because it’s light outside.” She then 

saw her father getting handcuffed. 

¶ 45 Brandon’s testimony was similar to Breanna’s. He also remembered walking with his sister 

to get S.R., who returned with them to Mr. Franklin’s house. He testified that upon arriving back 

at his father’s house, his father and S.R. were playing cards before they “got to arguing.” At some 

point, S.R. and his father left the bedroom and went into the basement. Echoing his sister’s 

testimony, he testified that he remembered hearing a scream emanating from the basement and the 

sound of a pipe hitting the floor. He also testified that at some point, after his father had come back 

upstairs, he brought S.R. a glass of water and “her hair was gone” and “[s]he seemed sad.” When 

S.R. eventually came back upstairs, he recalled seeing a bruise on her leg, and that she and Breanna 

were talking about something in the bathroom, but he did not hear what they were saying. His 

father and S.R. went to the bedroom, and he went to sleep. He woke up the following morning to 

police at the house, “banging on the window asking for S.R.” 

¶ 46 In addition to these eyewitnesses, the State also called several law enforcement witnesses, 

including the investigator on the case and the officer who arrested Mr. Franklin, an evidence 

technician, and the nurse who examined S.R. in the hospital and administered a sexual assault kit. 

The State also entered testimony by way of stipulation from forensic technicians on issues related 

to the physical evidence. It was stipulated that if these witnesses were called to testify, they would 

testify that semen matching Mr. Franklin’s genetic profile was found on the kit’s vaginal swab, 

but not on the oral or anal swabs. Additionally, a sample of the pipe allegedly used to beat S.R. 

did not reveal any blood. Upon entering the stipulations, the State rested its case-in-chief. 
No. 1-20-0996

- 17 - 

¶ 47 Mr. Franklin then moved for a directed verdict, noting several discrepancies between S.R.’s 

testimony and the State’s other witnesses. Among others, defense counsel noted how both Breanna 

and Brandon testified to picking S.R. up from her aunt’s house and to her walking back to Mr. 

Franklin’s home with them, voluntarily. This testimony conflicted with S.R.’s claims about being 

abducted by Mr. Franklin in front of the store. In response, the State conceded that while there 

were some portions of S.R.’s testimony that were inconsistent, “none were to major points or the 

elements of the offenses and none that can’t be explained by the passage of time since this event 

happened.” The court denied Mr. Franklin’s motion for a directed verdict. 

¶ 48 2. The Defense Case

¶ 49 Mr. Franklin testified on his own behalf. On direct examination, he testified that he had 

married S.R. in 2011, but that by July 2014, the two were separated and S.R. would sometimes 

stay at her family’s house a few blocks away. Mr. Franklin recalled that on the evening of July 21, 

2014, his kids wanted to get something from the store, so he gave them an electronic benefits 

transfer (EBT) card. He told them that if they saw S.R. while they were out to “tell her to call me.” 

When the kids returned from the store, S.R. was with them. He testified that he and S.R. then went 

into the bedroom where they played cards. S.R. wanted to talk about their marriage. Mr. Franklin 

testified that their conversation in the bedroom “got a little bit loud.”

¶ 50 Mr. Franklin further testified that when S.R. arrived at his house with the kids, he had 

noticed that there was an issue with S.R.’s hair: “[S]he had tracks in her head, and the back was 

kind of hanging down, like it had c[o]me loose and whatnot.” S.R. wanted to fix her hair, so he 

gave her a towel. He testified that they went to the basement because the water in the building had 

been cut off and the basement faucet was the only one that still worked. S.R. asked if he had any 

shampoo, and he sent her upstairs to the medicine cabinet. Mr. Franklin testified that S.R. had 
No. 1-20-0996

- 18 - 

accidentally grabbed the wrong bottle from the cabinet, which is where he kept a homemade liquid 

he used for shaving, which included a hair removal chemical. S.R. started applying the liquid to 

her head and yelled out “this stuff is burning me,” which is when he realized she had grabbed the 

wrong bottle. He testified that her hair started falling out in sections and that he never cut her hair.

¶ 51 He further testified that after the hair incident in the basement, they went back upstairs, and 

S.R. went into the bathroom to look at herself in the mirror. He recalled Breanna talking with S.R. 

in the bathroom. He then went to his bedroom and S.R. came in a few minutes later, where they 

proceeded to have consensual sex. He testified that he never tied her up and never forced her to 

have sex with him. He also denied taking S.R. back to his house against her will from the store or 

ever telling her that she could not leave. He testified that he did not have any type of violent or 

physical altercation with S.R. during the period between July 21 and July 23, when he was arrested.

¶ 52 On cross-examination, Mr. Franklin admitted that he had caused the injury to S.R.’s foot 

but claimed it had been an accident. He testified that when they first went down to the basement, 

he was lifting weights. He had constructed a homemade fitness device where weights were 

attached to a cable on a pulley, which he could lift by pulling in a downward motion. As he was 

using this device, “the whole thing collapsed” and some of the weights fell on S.R.’s foot, clipping 

her toe, causing her to cry out in pain. He then called for his kids to bring down some ice. 

¶ 53 Defense counsel also introduced testimony by way of stipulation from Detective Jerome 

Malkowski of the Chicago Police Department who, if called, would testify that he had reviewed 

all the surveillance footage from the store that S. R. had claimed to have gone to, for the time 

period from July 20 and 21, 2014, and that neither S.R. nor Mr. Franklin appeared in any of the 

footage. 

¶ 54 D. Finding of Guilt and Sentencing 
No. 1-20-0996

- 19 - 

¶ 55 After closing arguments, the court found Mr. Franklin guilty of aggravated kidnaping and 

three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault (to account for three separate instances of sexual 

assault involving the vagina, mouth, and anus). Mr. Franklin filed a motion for a new trial, drawing 

the court’s attention to the lack of physical evidence regarding two of those counts. The court 

revisited its earlier ruling and granted Mr. Franklin’s motion as to those charges. The court then 

sentenced Mr. Franklin to consecutive sentences of 16 years for one count of aggravated criminal 

sexual assault and 6 years for aggravated kidnapping, the statutory minimum for each offense. 

This appeal followed.

¶ 56 II. JURISDICTION

¶ 57 Mr. Franklin timely filed his notice of appeal on October 6, 2020, the same day he was 

sentenced. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under article VI, section 6, of the Illinois 

Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6) and Illinois Supreme Court Rules 603 (eff. Feb 6, 2013) 

and 606 (eff. July 1, 2017), governing appeals from final judgments in criminal cases. 

¶ 58 III. ANALYSIS

¶ 59 On appeal, Mr. Franklin argues that section 106B-5 of the Code is unconstitutional 

because, in permitting adult accusers to testify outside the accused’s presence, it goes beyond the 

limited exception to confrontation rights carved out by the United States Supreme Court in Craig, 

497 U.S. 836. Mr. Franklin also makes two additional arguments as to the application of the statute 

in his case. First, he asserts that even if section 106B-5 survives a facial challenge, it was 

unconstitutionally applied in this case because S.R. was “more functional in society than most 

intellectually disabled adults and would not have suffered any long-term emotional trauma from 

testifying in [Mr. Franklin’s] presence.” Next, he contends that the specific procedure utilized by 

the circuit court in this case—where he, rather than S.R., was the person segregated from the 
No. 1-20-0996

- 20 - 

courtroom during S.R.’s testimony—was not the procedure authorized by section 106B-5 and 

violated his right to be present at all critical stages of the prosecution. We address these three 

arguments in turn. 

¶ 60 A. The Facial Constitutionality of Section 106B-5 

¶ 61 Illinois statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality. People v. Mosley, 2015 IL 

115872, ¶ 22. To overcome this presumption, the party challenging the statute must clearly 

establish its invalidity. Id. As our supreme court explained in Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 

Ill. 2d 296, 305-06 (2008), a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a legislative enactment is 

“the most difficult challenge to mount successfully” because “an enactment is facially invalid only 

if no set of circumstances exists under which it would be valid.” Moreover, in reviewing such 

challenges, “[w]e have a duty to construe the statute in a manner that upholds the statute’s validity 

and constitutionality, if it can be reasonably done.” People v. Hollins, 2012 IL 112754, ¶ 13. As 

the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law, our review is de novo. People v. Sharpe, 216 

Ill. 2d 481, 486-87 (2005).

¶ 62 The confrontation clause of the sixth amendment, made applicable to the states through the 

fourteenth amendment, provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the 

right *** to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const., amend. VI. The Illinois 

Constitution also has a confrontation clause, which, in 1994, was amended to mirror the language 

of the United States Constitution. Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 8 (amended 1994); People v. Lofton, 

194 Ill. 2d 40, 53 (2000). 

¶ 63 Mr. Franklin argues that the portion of section 106B-5 of the Code that permits adult 

victims of sexual abuse who have intellectual disabilities to testify by closed-circuit television

violates the confrontation clause for two reasons: (1) it improperly expands Maryland v. Craig’s 
No. 1-20-0996

- 21 - 

limited exception to the right to face-to-face confrontation for child accusers and (2) it violates the 

holding from Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), where, 14 years after Craig, the United 

States Supreme Court provided a more robust framework for protecting the right to confront one’s 

accuser. We are not persuaded by either of these arguments. 

¶ 64 1. Maryland v. Craig

¶ 65 In Craig, 497 U.S. at 840, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining 

whether the confrontation clause “categorically prohibit[ed] a child witness in a child abuse case 

from testifying against a defendant at trial, outside the defendant’s physical presence, by one-way 

closed circuit television.” At issue was a Maryland statute similar to the Illinois statute at issue in 

this case as it applies to child witnesses. The Maryland statute allowed child victims of sexual 

abuse to testify via closed-circuit television if the trial judge determined that requiring them to 

testify in the courtroom would result in their suffering such serious emotional distress that they 

could not reasonably communicate. Id. at 841. The defendant argued the statute unconstitutionally 

stripped her of the right to stand face-to-face with her accuser. 

¶ 66 The Court rejected the defendant’s constitutional challenge and upheld the statute. It held 

that: 

“where necessary to protect a child witness from trauma that would be caused by testifying 

in the physical presence of the defendant, at least where such trauma would impair the 

child’s ability to communicate, the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit use of a 

procedure that, despite the absence of face-to-face confrontation, ensures the reliability of 

the evidence by subjecting it to rigorous adversarial testing and thereby preserves the 

essence of effective confrontation.” Id. at 857. 

¶ 67 The Court’s analysis in Craig began with the observation that “[t]he central concern of the 
No. 1-20-0996

- 22 - 

Confrontation Clause is to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by 

subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact.” 

Id. at 846. The Court then reviewed a long line of cases and concluded that while its precedents 

clearly established a preference for face-to-face confrontation, that preference “ ‘must occasionally 

give way to considerations of public policy and the necessities of the case.’ ” Id. at 849 (quoting 

Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 (1895)). Accordingly, the Court explained, the

Confrontation Clause “may be satisfied absent a physical, face-to-face confrontation at trial only 

where denial of such confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy and only 

where the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured.” Craig, 497 U.S. at 850. The Court 

concluded that procedures authorized under the Maryland statute satisfied these conditions. 

¶ 68 In the Court’s view, not only did the statute advance the important public policy interest of 

protecting vulnerable child witnesses, but it also potentially enhanced the reliability of testimony, 

rather than merely assured it. The Court noted that “where face-to-face confrontation causes 

significant emotional distress in a child witness, there is evidence that such confrontation could 

disserve the Confrontation Clause’s truth-seeking goal.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 857. 

Throughout its opinion, the Court stressed that the Maryland statute before it ensured “rigorous 

adversarial testing” that preserved “the essence of effective confrontation.” Id.

¶ 69 Mr. Franklin argues that the holding in Craig was a limited one that applies only to child 

accusers in sexual abuse cases. He asserts that Craig was explicitly based upon the State’s unique 

interest in the “physical and psychological well-being of child abuse victims.” Id. at 853. 

¶ 70 Craig is focused on child victims of sexual abuse because that was the specific class of 

victims covered by the challenged statute in that case. The Court certainly discussed in some detail 

the unique vulnerabilities of child witnesses, but at no point did it hold that children were the only 
No. 1-20-0996

- 23 - 

group that could justifiably require accommodations similar to those authorized under the 

Maryland law. While the precise holding in Craig is not controlling here, as this case does not 

concern a child witness, the reasoning the Court employed in Craig does control, and in our view, 

that reasoning defeats Mr. Franklin’s argument that the use of 106B-5 for adult witnesses with 

intellectual disabilities violates the confrontation clause.

¶ 71 When first passed into law in 1994, section 106B-5 applied only to child witnesses, like 

the statute at issue in Craig. As we explained in People v. Van Brocklin, 293 Ill. App. 3d 156, 169 

(1997), by providing for the administration of an oath, cross-examination, and the defendant’s 

observation of the witness’s demeanor, section 106B-5 includes the requisite safeguards to assure 

reliability, preserve the essence of confrontation, and maintain the adversarial nature of the 

proceeding. In 2002, the General Assembly amended the statute to also apply to adult witnesses 

with moderate to severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. Pub. Act 92-434, § 10 (eff. 

Jan. 1, 2002). The statute’s requirements are the same for child witnesses and adult witnesses with

disabilities. 

¶ 72 As with the statute at issue in Craig, the statute before us ensures reliability because the 

essence of effective confrontation remains. The witness testifies under oath and is subject to full 

cross examination. Effective confrontation is further assured by the fact that the State may not use 

section 106B-5 in cases where defendants represent themselves pro se. 725 ILCS 5/106B-5(g)

(West 2018). Moreover, the statute can only be used in the prosecution of seven specifically listed 

crimes and it is only available where the judge determines that failure to use these procedures 

would cause the witness such “serious emotional distress” that the witness would not be able to

“reasonably communicate” or would be likely to cause “severe adverse effects.” Id. § 106B-5. As 

in Craig, because the statute can be used only where a court makes a case-specific finding that 
No. 1-20-0996

- 24 - 

face-to-face confrontation would cause such “serious emotional distress” that the witness would 

not be able to “reasonably communicate,” the alternative confrontation procedures in 106B-5 may 

actually aid, rather than undermine, the truth-seeking goal of the confrontation clause.

¶ 73 At oral argument, counsel for Mr. Franklin argued that the expansion of the confrontation 

clause limitation in Craig to adult witnesses could extend what is meant to be a limited exception

to all cases. As the defense correctly notes, few witnesses want to testify if given the choice, and 

the process is likely traumatic for many of them. But in our view, Mr. Franklin’s fear is not wellfounded, as section 106B-5 contains built-in mechanisms that limit its utilization and prevent 

routine use. As explained above, the statute is only available in cases where the defendant is 

charged with one or more of seven specifically listed offenses. Additionally, the prosecution’s 

ability to use the procedures authorized by section 106B-5 is layered with procedural and 

substantive hurdles. Before any testimony can be taken outside the presence of the accused, there 

must be a case-specific finding of necessity by the trial court. Here, that finding was made only 

after briefing, a lengthy and contentious hearing that included expert witness testimony, and the 

court’s own independent observation of the witness. 

¶ 74 Beyond these statutory constraints, there is also the reality that this law has been around 

for over two decades, and, while the parties could not provide specific figures as to how often the 

statute is used for adult witnesses in criminal trials in Illinois, it appears that such use is rare. 

Indeed, neither party could point to any case in which this court or our supreme court has 

considered an appeal on the statute’s application where the victim is an adult. In our view, the fact 

that the State has rarely relied on this statute to allow adult accusers to testify outside the accused’s 

presence provides some reassurance that our decision here today will not, as Mr. Franklin predicts, 

lead to the wholesale loss of confrontation rights in Illinois.
No. 1-20-0996

- 25 - 

¶ 75 We also note that the Illinois General Assembly is not the only state legislature that has 

made the decision to expand its law that allows for special procedures where a child victim of sex 

abuse testifies to adults with significant intellectual and developmental disabilities. As the State 

highlights in its brief, Michigan, Colorado, Louisiana, and Florida all have similar laws allowing 

for special arrangements to be made to accommodate adult witnesses with such disabilities. See

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.2163a (West 2019); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-10-402 (West 

2014); La. Stat. Ann. § 15:283 (2007); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 92.54 (West 2016). Thus, while Mr. 

Franklin may be correct when he states that the United States Supreme Court has never specifically 

enumerated a “State interest in the psychological well-being of adult accusers of sexual abuse” 

justifying a similar exception to the confrontation right as the one it elaborated in Craig, several 

states have independently moved in that direction. 

¶ 76 In sum, we are not persuaded by Mr. Franklin’s argument that section 106B-5 falls outside 

the limitation on confrontation clause rights that the United States Supreme Court recognized in 

Craig. To the contrary, we find that under the reasoning the court employed there, Mr. Franklin’s 

facial attack on the constitutionality of this statute must fail.

¶ 77 2. Crawford v. Washington

¶ 78 Mr. Franklin next argues that the holding and analysis of the Court in Craig was limited 

by its later decision in Crawford, 541 U.S. 36. The United States Supreme Court was asked in that 

case to determine the extent to which the confrontation clause is implicated when the State seeks 

to admit into evidence testimonial statements uttered outside of the courtroom by unavailable 

witnesses. The specific evidence at issue in that case was an out-of-court tape-recorded statement 

made by the defendant’s wife describing the stabbing for which the defendant had been charged.

Id. at 40. The Court held that the Constitution bars the use of such statements at trial unless the 
No. 1-20-0996

- 26 - 

State can establish both that the declarant is unavailable to testify and that the defendant had a 

prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Id. at 68. If these two preconditions are not 

satisfied, the statements are inadmissible, even if they bear “adequate indicia of reliability.” Id. at 

42. 

¶ 79 Mr. Franklin argues that Crawford “overruled the sort of general balancing test applied in 

Craig in favor of a more historical approach that provides greater protections to the accused.” In 

light of the strict, procedural framework adopted in Crawford, he asserts, even assuming arguendo 

that “the mental health of adults with moderate intellectual disabilities is an important state interest 

for the purposes of Craig’s balancing test, that balancing test is no longer valid following 

Crawford, and case law following and relying upon Craig needs to be reevaluated.”

¶ 80 We acknowledge that there is tension between the approaches the Court employed in Craig

and in Crawford. Justice Scalia dissented vigorously in Craig and brought into his majority 

decision for the Court in Crawford some of his thinking about the historical purpose of the

confrontation clause that his Supreme Court colleagues had refused to embrace in Craig. See

United States v. Cox, 871 F.3d 479, 492-95 (6th Cir. 2017) (Sutton, J., concurring) (cataloguing 

the several contradictions between Craig and Crawford and suggesting that “the two opinions 

would give Janus a run for his money”). 

¶ 81 However, these two cases are about different aspects of an accused’s right to confront 

witnesses. Craig was about witnesses who testify in court, under oath and subject to cross 

examination, under procedures in which a defendant’s right to personal face-to-face confrontation 

of the witness is limited. Crawford is about an out-of-court statement that was tape recorded but 

was never subject to cross examination and for which the witness was never under oath. Further, 

Crawford did not expressly overturn Craig. To the contrary, Craig is not even mentioned in the 
No. 1-20-0996

- 27 - 

majority opinion in Crawford, a conspicuous omission considering that, as noted above, Justice 

Scalia’s thinking on the confrontation clause loomed large over both cases. 

¶ 82 The Illinois supreme court continues to apply and favorably cite Craig in the postCrawford era, despite the tensions described above. See, e.g., People v. Cuadrado, 214 Ill. 2d 79, 

89-90 (2005). As we noted in People v. Pope, 2020 IL App (4th) 180773, ¶¶ 44, 46, while 

continuing to rely on Craig in the era of Crawford “may be problematic,” Craig nonetheless 

remains good law in this jurisdiction and “we are bound to follow it.” We therefore reject Mr. 

Franklin’s argument that Crawford effectively overruled the approach elaborated in Craig. 

¶ 83 B. Mr. Franklin’s As-Applied Challenges 

¶ 84 Mr. Franklin also challenges section 106B-5 as applied in his case. As opposed to a facial 

challenge of a statute’s constitutional validity, which requires showing that a statute is 

unconstitutional under any set of facts, an “as-applied” constitutional challenge requires a 

defendant to show that the statute violates the constitution as it has been applied to him, a 

determination that is “dependent on the particular circumstances and facts of the individual 

defendant.” People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151, ¶ 37. 

¶ 85 Mr. Franklin makes two as-applied challenges. First, he argues that section 106B-5 should 

not have applied here because S.R. “was both more functional in society than most intellectually 

disabled adults and would not have suffered any long-term emotional trauma from testifying in 

[Mr. Franklin’s] presence.” Second, he argues the procedure elaborated in section 106B-5 was not 

strictly adhered to in his trial, as he, rather than S.R., was placed outside of the courtroom during 

her examination. This deviation, he argues, violated the statute and his fundamental right to be 

present at all critical stages of his prosecution. We consider both arguments. 

¶ 86 1. S.R.’s Capacities 
No. 1-20-0996

- 28 - 

¶ 87 Mr. Franklin asserts that S.R. was essentially too functional to qualify for out-of-court 

testimony under section 106B-5 and that the trial court erred in finding otherwise. According to 

Mr. Franklin, S.R. has “strong socialization skills that compensated for her cognitive deficits,” and 

these skills helped her both “raise four children and eight grandchildren” and “commit a forgery, 

a felony based upon duplicitous conduct, reading, and writing.” These attributes, he claims, show 

that S.R. was “more functional in society than most intellectually disabled adults” and therefore 

did not require the protections of section 106B-5. Mr. Franklin also asserts that trial court’s ruling 

was “brief, with minimal fact finding to align the case with Craig’s requirements.” 

¶ 88 We reject these arguments. The record is clear that the court’s decision in this case to allow 

S.R. to testify remotely was not made lightly or based on minimal fact-finding. To the contrary, 

the court entered its oral ruling after briefing by the parties and a lengthy hearing lasting “the better 

part of a day” which involved multiple witnesses and an in camera examination of S.R. where the 

court could directly observe her emotional state. Pursuant to section 106B-5, the court can order 

that the testimony of “a person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability” be 

taken outside the courtroom and shown via closed-circuit television if it determines that testifying 

in the courtroom would result in that witness experiencing such “serious emotional distress” that 

they would not be able “reasonably communicate.” 725 ILCS 5/106B-5(a)(2) (West 2018). Here, 

there was ample evidence before the court supporting a finding that S.R. suffered from an 

intellectual disability and that, if forced to testify in the same room as Mr. Franklin, she would not 

be able to reasonably communicate. The court was fully aware of all the facts Mr. Franklin 

highlights about S.R.’s past, family life, and cognitive abilities; and made a finding that was 

supported by the record that she needed the protection afforded by section 106B-5. 

¶ 89 The first witness to testify at the hearing on the State’s motion to allow S.R. to testify 
No. 1-20-0996

- 29 - 

remotely was Dr. Lori Tall, a clinical psychologist, who opined both that S.R. suffered from a 

moderate intellectual disability and that if required to testify in the presence of Mr. Franklin, “she 

would not be able to function.” Dr. Tall’s opinions were based on a clinical interview she 

conducted with S.R. that lasted around four hours. During that interview, Dr. Tall witnessed

directly how S.R. shut down emotionally when the topic of Mr. Franklin came up. At the mere 

mention of Mr. Franklin, S.R. started crying uncontrollably and “she wasn’t able to answer my 

questions or describe the events at that point in time. She just asked to go home.” It took Dr. Tall 

half an hour to calm S.R. back down to a level where she was capable of continuing the interview. 

Dr. Tall then administered a battery of psychological tests, the results of which led her to conclude 

that S.R. met the DSM criteria for an intellectual disability. 

¶ 90 On the WAIS, S.R. scored a “full-scale IQ of 57," which meant, according to Dr. Tall, that 

“she is functioning at a very low level” (anything below 70 is considered an intellectual disability). 

Such a low score, she explained, would make it extremely difficult for S.R. to live an independent 

life. On the Woodcock-Johnson Test, which measures academic achievement, S.R. tested at 

kindergarten level. While she recognized the letters of the alphabet, she could not read or write 

much beyond her own name. As for her math skills, she could not do anything more complex than 

adding and subtracting single digits. Finally, on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale, a test 

which measures basic life skills, S.R. obtained an overall score of 50, which Dr. Tall explained 

was beneath the first percentile and meant that “she functions at the age range of 8 to 10 years.” 

¶ 91 The State’s second witness, Maria Godinez, was a victim’s advocate who met with S.R. 

between 5 and 10 times while Mr. Franklin’s trial was pending. While Ms. Godinez was not 

qualified to opine on S.R.’s intellectual capacities, she did have several firsthand experiences 

interacting with S.R. where she witnessed how S.R. would shut down emotionally and lose the 
No. 1-20-0996

- 30 - 

ability to communicate when asked about the incident involving Mr. Franklin. She explained that 

S.R was “extremely fearful” of Mr. Franklin and that whenever the topic of Mr. Franklin came up, 

S.R. would break down and “go into crisis” characterized by panic attacks, crying and shaking 

uncontrollably. On one occasion, Ms. Godinez recalled, the panic attack was so intense that S.R. 

had trouble catching her breath and Ms. Godinez thought she might have to call for medical 

assistance. Whenever S.R. worked herself into such a state, Ms. Godinez would have to hold her 

and hug her to calm her back down. Like Dr. Tall’s testimony, Ms. Godinez’s testimony supported 

an inference that if forced to testify in the same room as Mr. Franklin, S.R. would not be able to 

reasonably communicate.

¶ 92 In addition to hearing from Dr. Tall and Ms. Godinez, the trial court also examined S.R. 

in camera to make its own assessment of her emotional state. During the court’s examination of 

S.R., S.R. stated that she would not feel safe in the courtroom with Mr. Franklin even if he was 

secured by sheriff’s deputies. She also stated that she would “feel much better” if she were able to 

talk about what she experienced from a different room. 

¶ 93 In sum, we reject Mr. Franklin’s as-applied argument that the court’s ruling in this case

was based on minimal fact-finding. To the contrary, there was ample evidence before the court 

which supported its ruling. We also reject Mr. Franklin’s contention that S.R.’s status as a mother

supports an inference that she had “significant socialization skills” that made the use of section 

106B-5 unnecessary. As the State noted in its brief and at oral argument, the fact that S.R. has 

several children and grandchildren bears no relationship to her cognitive abilities or her capacity 

to participate in Mr. Franklin’s trial without suffering destabilizing emotional distress. Such an 

inference is even less justified where, as here, there was significant evidence suggesting that S.R. 

was incapable of taking care of herself, let alone her children. All of the tests administered by Dr. 
No. 1-20-0996

- 31 - 

Tall suggested that S.R. had the cognitive abilities of a young child and that she required “a 

significant amount of support to function, adapt, and cope with the demands of adulthood.” Dr. 

Tall’s report also noted that none of S.R.’s children lived with her, that she lacked the basic literacy 

skills required to navigate public transportation on her own, and that her partner prepared her meals 

and completed all the household chores. 

¶ 94 2. Mr. Franklin’s Location Outside the Courtroom 

¶ 95 Finally, Mr. Franklin argues that the procedure elaborated in section 106B-5 was not 

strictly adhered to at his trial, as he, rather than S.R., was placed outside of the courtroom during 

her examination, even though section 106B-5 specifically requires that “the testimony of [the] 

victim *** be taken outside the courtroom and shown in the courtroom by means of a closed circuit

television (emphasis added) (id. § 106B-5(a)). The court, he contends, did the opposite of what the 

statute requires, “banishing [Mr. Franklin] from the courtroom during a critical stage of his trial 

while allowing S.R. to testify from inside the courtroom.” This procedure, he argues, violated not 

only section 106B-5, but also his fundamental right to be present at all critical stages of the 

prosecution. 

¶ 96 Both the federal and state constitutions afford criminal defendants the right to be present 

at all “critical stages” of proceedings, “from arraignment to sentencing.” People v. Lucas, 2019 IL 

App (1st) 160501, ¶ 12; U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 8. This right, 

however, is not absolute. Lucas, 2019 IL App (1st) 160501, ¶ 12. “[A] criminal defendant’s right 

of presence is violated only when his absence results in the denial of a fair and just trial.” Lofton, 

194 Ill. 2d at 67. 

¶ 97 Before addressing the merits of Mr. Franklin’s last argument, we note that he did not 

properly preserve it for review. To do so, he would have had to object contemporaneously to being 
No. 1-20-0996

- 32 - 

segregated from the courtroom during S.R.’s testimony and include that alleged error in a written 

posttrial motion. People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 611 (2010). Here, as noted above, the record 

does not explain how or why the court procedure changed from having S.R. testify from chambers 

via closed-circuit television to having her testify in court with Mr. Franklin outside the courtroom 

with one of his lawyers. While there are instances in the record of Mr. Franklin objecting generally 

to the use of section 106B-5, there is nothing in the record before us that suggests Mr. Franklin 

objected to this specific alteration. At oral argument, counsel for Mr. Franklin asserted that he did 

in fact object contemporaneously to the altered procedure, but we have reviewed the page of the 

trial transcript he cited and disagree with that interpretation. 

¶ 98 At the commencement of Mr. Franklin’s bench trial, defense counsel stated the following: 

“Judge, I ordered the transcript; I read it; I am aware of your Honor’s ruling. I would just 

like to renew my objection for the record that it violates my client’s confrontation laws. 

Additionally, it is my understanding, based on representation made by the State, that [S.R.] 

will be sitting in here in the courtroom while my client will be in the back watching via the 

television. And I will be objecting to anybody being allowed to sit in here while she is 

testifying by way of her, quote, unquote, support group; that this is a unique situation. I 

understand that most often trials are public. However, my client is being forced to observe 

[S.R.] testify in another room; and for her not to have to face my client, and also have the 

additional support of her people, Judge, I would feel like that is completely prejudicial to 

my client and ask it not be allowed.” 

While defense counsel certainly renewed her general objection to the use of section 106B-5, while 

also mounting a more specific objection to the presence of some of S.R.’s “support people” being 

present in the court room during her examination, she did not object specifically to the alteration 
No. 1-20-0996

- 33 - 

of procedure whereby Mr. Franklin would be outside of the courtroom. 

¶ 99 We have also reviewed Mr. Franklin’s motion for a new trial and the transcript of the 

hearing on that motion. While Mr. Franklin clearly preserved his general objection to the use of 

section 106B-5 procedures, there is no indication that he objected to the specific variation used at 

his trial. In fact, he stated in his posttrial motion that “the court erred when it allowed the 

complaining witness to testify via closed circuit television, denying the defendant his rights under 

Article I of the Constitution of the State of Illinois and under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. 

Constitution.” Thus, his motion does not even acknowledge that, in fact, it was the witness who 

testified in open court and that he watched her from outside the courtroom. 

¶ 100 We also note that at the pretrial hearing to decide whether to allow S.R. to testify via closedcircuit television, defense counsel for Mr. Franklin expressed specific concern with the factfinder’s ability to see S.R. As the State highlights in its brief, counsel stated: 

“Your Honor, we are still objecting to her testifying outside the courtroom whether this is 

a bench or jury trial, the finder of fact, the trier should actually see her demeanor. See how 

she reacts. And they should make a determination of whether or not this is real or not. 

Whether or not she’s faking it or this is an actual condition that she does have.” 

Arguably, Mr. Franklin not only forfeited any objection to this change but invited it, since the 

procedure the court ultimately employed at trial addressed one of Mr. Franklin’s specific concerns 

about using section 106B-5. 

¶ 101 Even if Mr. Franklin did not invite this change, we find the absence of any record of an 

objection in this case particularly problematic. If, as he now claims, he believed that S.R., rather 

than he, should have been outside the courtroom, this would have been a relatively easy adjustment 

for the trial court to make. Moreover, the absence of any record on this means that we have no 
No. 1-20-0996

- 34 - 

knowledge of what caused the trial court to veer from its originally announced procedure or of the 

exact procedures employed to allow Mr. Franklin to observe and communicate with his lawyer 

during S.R.’s testimony. In short, there is no doubt that Mr. Franklin forfeited any objection to the 

court’s variation on the section 106B-5 procedure. 

¶ 102 In his reply brief, Mr. Franklin argues that, regardless of any forfeiture, we should address 

this argument as a plain error. As our supreme court explained in People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill. 2d 

478, 489 (2009), the plain-error doctrine allows us to remedy a “ ‘clear or obvious error,’ ” 

regardless of the defendant’s forfeiture, in two situations: “(1) where the evidence in the case is so 

closely balanced that the jury’s guilty verdict may have resulted from the error and not the 

evidence; or (2) where the error is so serious that the defendant was denied a substantial right, and 

thus a fair trial.” Mr. Franklin’s argument is that this falls under this latter “second prong” plain 

error. 

¶ 103 The State argues that Mr. Franklin does not qualify for plain-error review on this issue 

because he failed to argue it in his opening brief, and “[a] defendant who fails to argue for plainerror review obviously cannot meet his burden of persuasion that plain error occurred.” See People 

v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010); People v. Cooper, 2013 IL App (1st) 113030, ¶ 91; People 

v. Nieves, 192 Ill. 2d 487, 502-03 (2000). Generally, points not argued in the opening brief are 

forfeited and cannot be raised for the first time in the reply brief. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 

1, 2020). However, our supreme court has recognized that because a defendant never knows if the 

State will forfeit any forfeiture argument by not raising it in its response brief, “it would be unfair 

to require a defendant to assert plain error in his or her opening brief.” People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 

2d 306, 348 (2000); see People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 412 (2010). We therefore address Mr. 

Franklin’s argument, raised for the first time in his reply, that his temporary exclusion from the 
No. 1-20-0996

- 35 - 

courtroom was second-prong plain error. 

¶ 104 In support of his argument, Mr. Franklin relies primarily on Lucas, 2019 IL App (1st) 

160501, ¶ 21, where this court held that the violation of a defendant’s right to be present “had a 

cascading impact on fundamental rights” that “amounted to second-prong plain error.” But Lucas

had nothing to do with section 106B-5 and the portions of that decision quoted by Mr. Franklin 

must be placed in context. 

¶ 105 In Lucas, a trial judge in a bench trial viewed a video of a defendant’s traffic stop in 

chambers, completely outside of the defendant’s presence, and the defendant had no ability to 

follow what was happening as the judge watched the video. Id. ¶ 5. The video was a crucial piece 

of evidence in the case. Id. ¶ 4. The judge found the defendant guilty on several charges, explicitly 

stating in his ruling that he relied on things he had observed in the video. Id. ¶ 7. We reversed, 

finding that the defendant’s absence from the judge’s chambers during the screening of the video 

violated her right to be present in a way that affected the trial’s fairness “because she was unable 

to view the evidence against her and aid in her own defense.” Id. ¶ 14. 

¶ 106 Unlike the defendant in Lucas, Mr. Franklin was able to view all the evidence against him 

and aid in his own defense, even if he had to view the testimony of one witness from another room. 

Mr. Franklin knew exactly what was happening in the courtroom during S.R.’s examination. He 

was able to closely follow via video feed and he had the capacity to object. This was quite different 

than Lucas, where the defendant was completely unaware of what was transpiring in the judge’s 

chambers as a crucial piece of evidence was being reviewed.

¶ 107 Mr. Franklin’s case more closely resembles People v. Martinez, 2021 IL App (1st) 172097, 

where we considered our decision in Lucas and found that it was inapplicable. In Martinez, the 

court allowed a child victim in a sexual abuse case to testify by closed-circuit television after a 
No. 1-20-0996

- 36 - 

pre-trial hearing, pursuant to section 106B-5. Id. ¶ 4. When the trial date arrived, it was the 

defendant, rather than the child witness, who was temporarily relocated to a nearby room to view 

testimony via closed-circuit television. On appeal, the defendant made the same argument that Mr. 

Franklin makes here, asserting that the procedure by which the court permitted the child victim to 

testify violated section 106B-5 and resulted in the denial of his right to be present at every critical 

stage of his trial. Id. ¶ 39. While we agreed with the defendant that “the specific procedure outlined 

in section 106B-5 was not followed” in his case, we rejected his plain-error argument, concluding 

that he was “unable to show that his absence from the courtroom resulted in an unfair proceeding 

or caused him to be denied an underlying substantial constitutional right.” Id. ¶¶ 43, 45. 

Specifically, “there [was] no dispute that [the witness] testified under oath under the watchful eyes 

of the parties and the fact-finder and was subject to contemporaneous cross-examination” and the 

record contained “no evidence that defendant’s absence *** significantly impaired his right to 

communicate with counsel and assist in his own defense or violated his constitutional 

confrontation rights.” Id. ¶ 46. The same is true in this case.

¶ 108 The specific impairment of his rights that Mr. Franklin cites in his reply brief is that the 

procedure used affected his right to observe the jury and contribute to his defense. As for his right 

to observe the jury, this was a bench trial. Because Mr. Franklin neither objected nor provided us 

with a full record as to what occurred, it is unclear to this court whether Mr. Franklin could actually 

see the trial judge from where he was seated behind the courtroom. Even if he could not, however, 

Mr. Franklin cites no authority and provides no rationale as to why the temporary inability to see 

the factfinder in the context of testimony given pursuant to section 106B-5 amounts to secondprong plain error. As for contributing to his defense, as noted above, Mr. Franklin had full 

communication with his lawyer during the testimony because one of his lawyers sat with him and 
No. 1-20-0996

- 37 - 

they could text the lawyer in the courtroom. 

¶ 109 In sum, as in Martinez, while Mr. Franklin is correct that section 106B-5 was not strictly 

adhered to in his case, he has not adequately shown how his temporary absence from the courtroom 

resulted in an unfair proceeding or rose to the level of second prong plain error. 

¶ 110 IV. CONCLUSION

¶ 111 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

¶ 112 Affirmed. 
No. 1-20-0996

- 38 - 

People v. Franklin, 2023 IL App (1st) 200996 

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 14-CR17402; the Hon. Kenneth J. Wadas, Judge, presiding. 

Attorneys

for

Appellant:

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, Michael Gentithes, and 

Daniel H. Regenscheit, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of 

Chicago, for appellant.

Attorneys

for

Appellee:

Kimberly M. Foxx, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique 

Abraham, Mary L. Boland, and Sarah L. Simpson, Assistant 

State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.