Title: People v. Moon
Citation: 2022 IL 125959
Docket Number: 125959
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: April 7, 2022

2022 IL 125959 
 
IN THE 
SUPREME COURT 
OF 
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 
 
 
 
(Docket No. 125959) 
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v.  
OMEGA MOON, Appellant. 
 
 
 
Opinion filed April 7, 2022. 
 
 
JUSTICE OVERSTREET delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 
 
Chief Justice Anne M. Burke and Justices Garman, Theis, Neville, Michael J. 
Burke, and Carter concurred in the judgment and opinion. 
 
OPINION 
 
¶ 1 
 
A jury found defendant, Omega Moon, guilty of domestic battery. The Cook 
County circuit court, however, failed to administer a trial oath to the jury at any 
time prior to the jury rendering its verdict. Defendant, therefore, was convicted by 
a jury that was never sworn to try the case. During the trial, defendant did not object 
to the unsworn status of the jury until after the jury rendered its guilty verdict. 
 
 
 
 
 
- 2 - 
Defendant raised the issue for the first time in her posttrial motion requesting a new 
trial. The circuit court denied the posttrial motion, recognizing that the error 
occurred but concluding that the error was harmless.  
¶ 2 
 
The appellate court agreed that the circuit court’s failure to administer a trial 
oath to the jury was “clear error.” 2020 IL App (1st) 170675, ¶¶ 42, 44. The 
appellate court, however, concluded that defendant forfeited this error by failing to 
object at the trial. The appellate court declined to address the error under the plain 
error rule because, the appellate court concluded, defendant was not prejudiced by 
the error. Id. ¶¶ 45-46.  
¶ 3 
 
We are now asked to determine, under plain error principles, whether 
defendant’s trial before an unsworn jury requires automatic reversal without a 
showing of prejudice to defendant. For the following reasons, we conclude that a 
reversal of defendant’s conviction is required under these circumstances, regardless 
of the strength of the evidence or any showing of prejudice to defendant. Therefore, 
we reverse the appellate and circuit courts’ judgments and remand to the circuit 
court for further proceedings. 
 
¶ 4 
 
 
 
 
 
I. BACKGROUND 
¶ 5 
 
The State charged defendant with one count of domestic battery, alleging that 
defendant caused bodily harm to a minor, S.M., in violation of section 12-3.2(a)(1) 
of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2014)). Specifically, 
the State alleged that on or about June 22, 2014, defendant struck the minor several 
times with an object that left redness, swelling, and belt buckle-shaped marks on 
the child’s body. 
¶ 6 
 
The parties and prospective jurors appeared in court for defendant’s jury trial 
on October 24, 2016. Before jury selection, the circuit court typically administers a 
voir dire oath to the prospective jurors.1 In the present case, the record does not 
 
 
1The handbook for jurors in Illinois advises potential jurors they will be called upon to take the 
voir dire oath. See Petit Juror Handbook, How a Jury Is Chosen, Admin. Office of the Ill. Courts, 
https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/self-help/how-do-i-juror-conduct/petit-juror-handbook/ 
[https://
perma.cc/H5Z7-CN74] (last visited Feb. 24, 2020) (“The entire group of jurors will be asked to rise 
and to swear or affirm to answer truthfully all questions asked of you concerning your qualifications 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 3 - 
establish whether the circuit court administered a voir dire oath to prospective 
jurors at any time prior to or during jury selection. 
¶ 7 
 
During voir dire, the circuit court asked the prospective jurors whether they 
understood and accepted the Zehr principles: (1) that defendant is presumed 
innocent of the charges against her, (2) that the presumption of innocence is not 
overcome unless and until the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
defendant is guilty, (3) that the State carries the burden throughout the case of 
proving defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, (4) that defendant is not 
required to prove her innocence or present any evidence at all and may rely on the 
presumption of innocence, and (5) that defendant does not have to testify and that 
election not to testify cannot be held against her. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 431(b) (eff. July 
1, 2012); People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472 (1984). 
¶ 8 
 
The circuit court further asked each potential juror if he or she would follow the 
law as given by the court; if he or she would be fair to both sides; if he or she would 
decide the case without sympathy, bias, or prejudice to either side; and if he or she 
would wait for all the evidence, arguments, and instructions before reaching a 
decision. All the prospective jurors indicated that they would follow these 
instructions. 
¶ 9 
 
After the completion of voir dire and after the parties selected 12 jurors and 1 
alternate juror, the circuit court asked the circuit court clerk, “Would you swear the 
Jury in?” The transcript of the trial proceeding does not include a verbatim record 
of the oath that the circuit court clerk administered to the jury. Instead, the transcript 
includes only the following notation: “(Jury sworn to answer questions.).” In 
addition, the circuit court judge later acknowledged that she did not hear the circuit 
court clerk swear in the jury. However, the parties stipulated that the clerk 
incorrectly administered the voir dire oath to the already-selected jurors as follows: 
“[D]o you solemnly swear or affirm you’ll truthfully answer all questions asked 
concerning your qualifications as jurors in this case?” The parties were finished 
 
to act as a juror in the case.”); 1 R. Hunter, Trial Handbook for Illinois Lawyers, Criminal § 22:10, 
at 518 (9th ed. 2002) (“It is the duty of a juror to make full and truthful answers to such questions 
as are asked, neither falsely stating any fact nor concealing any material matter. The voir dire oath 
administered to jurors prior to their examination enjoins them to tell the complete and entire truth.”). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 4 - 
questioning the prospective jurors about their qualifications when the clerk 
administered this voir dire oath, and the parties agree that the circuit court never 
administered a trial oath2 to the jury after the completion of jury selection. 
¶ 10 
 
During the trial, defendant never objected to the unsworn status of the jury. 
Instead, defendant raised an issue concerning the lack of a jury oath for the first 
time in her posttrial motion that she filed after the jurors had already found her 
guilty. In her motion, defendant requested a new trial because the jurors were never 
sworn to try the case. Defendant’s posttrial motion included the affidavits of two 
assistant public defenders who did not represent defendant but were, nonetheless, 
in the courtroom and witnessed the jury’s swearing. The two assistant public 
defenders testified in their affidavits that they witnessed the circuit court clerk 
administer the voir dire oath to the jury instead of a trial oath.  
¶ 11 
 
The circuit court denied defendant’s posttrial motion. The trial judge took “full 
responsibility” for the error but ultimately concluded that a trial by an unsworn jury 
was not per se reversible error. Instead, the circuit court concluded, the defendant 
must show prejudice. The circuit court determined that defendant failed to show 
prejudice because, during voir dire, all potential jurors were admonished regarding 
the legal principles governing a criminal case and all potential jurors were asked if 
they could decide the case without prejudice or sympathy and wait for all the 
evidence, arguments, and instructions before so deciding. 
¶ 12 
 
In defendant’s direct appeal from the conviction, a majority of the appellate 
court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, concluding that defendant forfeited the 
error by failing to object at trial and concluding that the failure to swear the jury 
with a trial oath, under the facts of this case, did not constitute plain error under 
either prong of the plain error rule. 2020 IL App (1st) 170675, ¶¶ 42, 44-46.  
¶ 13 
 
In its analysis, the majority first held that it “need not resolve the effect under 
Illinois law of a forfeited claim of a trial by an unsworn jury because the jury here 
 
 
2“After the jury has been selected, the jurors will be asked to rise and to swear or affirm to well 
and truly try the matters at issue and render a true verdict according to the law and the evidence.” 
Petit Juror Handbook, supra; see also 725 ILCS 5/115-4(g) (West 2018) (“After the jury is 
impaneled and sworn the court may direct the selection of 2 alternative jurors who shall take the 
same oath as the regular jurors.” (Emphases added.)); Ill. S. Ct. R. 434(e) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) (“After 
the jury is impaneled and sworn the court may direct the selection of alternative jurors, who shall 
take the same oath as the regular jurors.” (Emphases added.)). 
 
 
 
 
 
- 5 - 
was not completely unsworn,” even though the “jury was given the voir dire oath 
rather than the trial oath just before trial.” Id. ¶ 43. The majority then agreed that 
swearing the jury with the wrong oath was “clear error” but concluded that the clear 
error was not plain error. Id. ¶¶ 44-46. The majority held that the error was not 
reviewable under the first prong of the plain error rule because the evidence was 
not closely balanced. Id. ¶ 44. The majority held that the error was not reviewable 
under the second prong of the plain error rule because the failure to properly swear 
the jury did not affect the fairness of the trial or the integrity of the judicial process. 
Id. ¶ 46. On this latter point, the majority explained: 
“Here, the [circuit] court asked every potential juror during voir dire if he or 
she would decide this case without sympathy, bias, or prejudice to either side; 
if he or she would wait for all the evidence, arguments, and instructions before 
making up his or her mind; if he or she would follow the law as given by the 
court; and if he or she would be fair to both sides.” Id. 
Therefore, according to the majority, “those inquiries, and the [circuit] court’s other 
instructions and admonishments, sufficiently addressed the purposes of the trial 
oath to conclude that the clear error did not affect the fairness of the trial or 
challenge the integrity of the judicial process.” Id. The majority, therefore, 
concluded that “[g]iving the wrong oath was clear error but not plain error under 
either prong.” Id. 
¶ 14 
 
Justice Connors dissented, disagreeing with her colleagues’ conclusion that the 
circuit court’s admonishments, instructions, and inquiries were sufficient to cure 
the circuit court’s failure to administer a trial oath to the jury. Id. ¶ 63 (Connors, J., 
dissenting). The dissent observed that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right 
to a trial by an impartial jury and that the trial oath is designed to protect that 
fundamental right. Id. ¶ 67. Emphasizing the difference between the voir dire oath 
and the trial oath, the dissent concluded that “[a] jury is not a jury until it is sworn 
to the trial oath—not the voir dire oath.” Id. ¶¶ 64-66. The dissent also concluded 
that “the failure to properly swear the jury—that is, administer the trial oath—is 
structural error” and that, because of the importance of the right involved, 
defendant’s conviction by an unsworn jury requires automatic reversal regardless 
of the strength of the evidence or a showing of prejudice to the defendant. Id. ¶ 67.  
 
 
 
 
 
- 6 - 
¶ 15 
 
We subsequently granted defendant’s petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 
315 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019). 
 
¶ 16 
 
 
 
 
 
II. ANALYSIS 
¶ 17 
 
At the outset, defendant acknowledges that she is asking us to address an issue 
that she has forfeited by failing to offer a contemporaneous objection when the 
circuit court tried the case before an unsworn jury. See People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 
119445, ¶ 48 (“To preserve a purported error for consideration by a reviewing 
court, a defendant must object to the error at trial and raise the error in a posttrial 
motion. [Citation.] Failure to do either results in forfeiture.”). Defendant asks us to 
excuse her forfeiture of this error under the plain error rule. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 615(a) 
(eff. Jan. 1, 1967) (“Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be 
noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court.”). 
Therefore, the central focus of this case is whether defendant’s failure to object to 
the unsworn status of the jury should be excused under the plain error rule. 
 
¶ 18 
 
 
 
 
 
A. The Plain Error Rule 
¶ 19 
 
The plain error rule is a well-established exception to forfeiture principles, 
allowing reviewing courts discretion to excuse a defendant’s procedural default. 
Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 48. The plain error rule is not a constitutional doctrine, 
but it “has roots in the same soil as due process.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 
177 (2005).  
¶ 20 
 
This court has framed the plain error rule to serve a dual purpose. Id. at 177-78. 
Initially, Illinois courts were concerned with forfeiture being too harsh of a sanction 
in cases where a defendant’s attorney failed to raise an error before the circuit court. 
Id. at 176. Therefore, we allowed the consideration of forfeited errors “in a close 
case.” Id. Over time, the rule evolved to also address “a broader concern with the 
overall fairness of the defendant’s trial.” Id. Accordingly, to address both of these 
areas of concern, the plain error rule allows reviewing courts discretion to review 
forfeited errors under two alternative prongs: (1) when a clear or obvious error 
occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to 
tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the 
 
 
 
 
 
- 7 - 
error, or (2) when a clear or obvious error occurred and the error is so serious that 
it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the 
judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence. Id. at 186-87. The two 
prongs are “two different ways to ensure the same thing—namely, a fair trial.” Id. 
at 179. Under both prongs, the burden of persuasion remains with the defendant. 
Id. at 187.  
¶ 21 
 
We have emphasized that the plain error rule is not “a general saving clause 
preserving for review all errors affecting substantial rights whether or not they have 
been brought to the attention of the trial court.” People v. Precup, 73 Ill. 2d 7, 16 
(1978). Instead, it is a narrow exception to forfeiture principles designed to protect 
the defendant’s rights and the reputation of the judicial process. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 
at 177. 
¶ 22 
 
The first analytical step under the plain error rule is to determine whether there 
was a clear or obvious error. People v. Sims, 192 Ill. 2d 592, 621 (2000). Here, as 
they did in the appellate court, the parties agree that clear error occurred when the 
circuit court administered the voir dire oath, instead of a trial oath, after the 
completion of jury selection. We agree; this was clear error. 
¶ 23 
 
The next step of plain error analysis depends on which prong of the plain error 
rule the defendant has invoked in seeking a review of a forfeited error. Sebby, 2017 
IL 119445, ¶ 50. When a defendant seeks review of a forfeited error under the first 
prong of the plain error rule, the reviewing court must determine “whether the 
defendant has shown that the evidence was so closely balanced the error alone 
severely threatened to tip the scales of justice.” Id. ¶ 51. This first prong of the plain 
error rule, i.e., the closely balanced evidence prong, “guards against errors that 
could lead to the conviction of an innocent person.” Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186.  
¶ 24 
 
When a defendant seeks review of a forfeited error under the second prong of 
the plain error rule, the reviewing court must determine “whether the defendant has 
shown that the error was so serious it affected the fairness of the trial and challenged 
the integrity of the judicial process.” Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 50. This second 
prong of the rule, i.e., the substantial rights prong, “guards against errors that erode 
the integrity of the judicial process and undermine the fairness of the defendant’s 
trial.” Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186. Errors that fall within the purview of the second 
prong of the plain error rule are “presumptively prejudicial errors—errors that may 
 
 
 
 
 
- 8 - 
not have affected the outcome, but must still be remedied” because the error 
“deprive[d] the defendant of a fair trial.” Id. at 185.  
¶ 25 
 
In the present appeal, defendant has invoked only the second prong of the plain 
error rule, arguing that the circuit court’s failure to properly swear the jury with a 
trial oath was structural error that automatically requires a new trial regardless of 
the closeness of the trial evidence or whether the error affected the outcome of the 
trial. Accordingly, our analysis focuses on the standards for invoking the second 
prong of the plain error rule. Whether a clear error constitutes second-prong plain 
error is a question of law that we review de novo. People v. Johnson, 238 Ill. 2d 
478, 485 (2010). 
 
¶ 26 
 
 
 
 
 
B. Second Prong Plain Error Equals Structural Error 
¶ 27 
 
As stated above, when a defendant establishes plain error under the second 
prong of the plain error rule, prejudice to the defendant is presumed regardless of 
the strength of the evidence or the effect of the error on the trial outcome. Herron, 
215 Ill. 2d at 187. This is true because, when a trial error is of such gravity that it 
threatens the integrity of the judicial process, the courts must act to correct the error 
so that the fairness and the reputation of the process are preserved and protected. 
People v. Green, 74 Ill. 2d 444, 455 (1979) (Ryan, J., specially concurring).  
¶ 28 
 
In defining the second prong of the plain error rule, this court has equated 
second-prong plain error with “structural error.” People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173, 
197-98 (2009). An error is typically designated as structural only if it necessarily 
renders a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or is an unreliable means of 
determining guilt or innocence. Id. at 196. In defining structural errors, the United 
States Supreme Court has explained that most constitutional errors can be harmless; 
if a defendant is represented by counsel and tried by an impartial adjudicator, 
“ ‘there is a strong presumption that any other [constitutional] errors that may have 
occurred are subject to harmless-error analysis.’ ” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 
1, 8 (1999) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579 (1986)). Therefore, the 
Supreme Court has applied harmless-error analysis to a wide array of constitutional 
errors (Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 306 (1991)) and has recognized an 
error as “structural,” and subject to automatic reversal, only in a “very limited class 
of cases” (Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468 (1997)).  
 
 
 
 
 
- 9 - 
¶ 29 
 
The structural errors identified by the Supreme Court include a complete denial 
of counsel, denial of self-representation at trial, trial before a biased judge, denial 
of a public trial, racial discrimination in the selection of a grand jury, and a defective 
reasonable doubt instruction. Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212, 218 n.2. 
These errors affect the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than mere 
errors in the trial process itself. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 310. “Put another way, 
these errors deprive defendants of ‘basic protections’ without which a ‘criminal 
trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or 
innocence *** and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally 
fair.’ ” Neder, 527 U.S. at 8-9 (quoting Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 577-78). 
¶ 30 
 
In determining whether an error is structural under the second prong of Illinois’s 
plain error rule, we are not limited to only the class of cases identified by the United 
States Supreme Court. Instead, we may determine that an error is structural as a 
matter of state law regardless of whether it is deemed structural under federal law. 
People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 13 (2010). Nonetheless, in analyzing whether an 
error is structural under the second prong of the plain error rule, we often look to 
the type of errors that the United States Supreme Court has identified as structural 
to determine whether the error being considered is comparable. See id. (“While the 
error is serious, it is not comparable to the errors recognized by the Supreme Court 
as structural.”). Our task, then, is to determine whether the circuit court’s failure to 
administer a trial oath to the jury constituted structural error. The foundation for 
this analysis rests upon defendant’s constitutional right to an impartial jury, which 
is guaranteed not only in the federal constitution but also separately guaranteed by 
our state’s constitution. 
  
¶ 31 
 
 
 
 
 
C. Constitutional Right to an Impartial Jury 
¶ 32 
 
A criminal defendant’s right to an impartial jury is firmly rooted in American 
jurisprudence. We have described this right as “one of the most revered of all rights 
acquired by a people to protect themselves from the arbitrary use of power by the 
State.” People ex rel. Daley v. Joyce, 126 Ill. 2d 209, 212 (1988). Impartiality is an 
essential part of this right. A criminal defendant “should never be required to 
encounter a pre-existing opinion deliberately formed, which the juror believes is 
true, and which [the defendant] would be obliged to overcome.” Collins v. People, 
 
 
 
 
 
- 10 - 
48 Ill. 145, 147 (1868). Instead, the defendant “has a right to be tried by men who 
are wholly impartial, without prepossessions or prejudice against him or his case.” 
Id. “The jurors must harbor no bias or prejudice which would prevent them from 
returning a verdict according to the law and evidence.” People v. Strain, 194 Ill. 2d 
467, 476 (2000). 
¶ 33 
 
The federal constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to an impartial 
jury in the sixth amendment, which provides, in part, that “[i]n all criminal 
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an 
impartial jury.” (Emphasis added.) U.S. Const., amend. VI. The sixth amendment 
of the United States Constitution applies to the states through the fourteenth 
amendment (U.S. Const., amend. XIV). Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149 
(1968).  
¶ 34 
 
The Illinois Constitution also guarantees criminal defendants the right to an 
impartial jury and sets out the right in two different places in the document. First, 
article I, section 8, of the Illinois Constitution provides, in part, that “[i]n criminal 
prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to *** trial by an impartial jury.” 
(Emphasis added.) Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 8. This right to an impartial jury was 
included in Illinois’s original constitution that was adopted when the state was first 
admitted into the Union in 1818, as well as in all subsequent revisions to the Illinois 
Constitution (Ill. Const. 1818, art. VIII, § 9; Ill. Const. 1848, art. XIII, § 9; Ill. 
Const. 1870, art. II, § 9). Coughlin v. People, 144 Ill. 140 (1893); People v. 
Bochenek, 2020 IL App (2d) 170545, ¶ 36. 
¶ 35 
 
The second provision in the Illinois Constitution that guarantees the right to a 
jury trial is found in article I, section 13, which provides that “[t]he right of trial by 
jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. Const. 
1970, art. I, § 13. Similar “as heretofore enjoyed” phrases were included in the 
Illinois Constitutions of 1818, 1848, and 1870 (Martin v. Heinold Commodities, 
Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 33, 72 (1994) (citing Ill. Const. 1818, art. VIII, § 6, Ill. Const. 1848, 
art. XIII, § 4, and Ill. Const. 1870, art. II, § 5)), and this court has held that there is 
no substantial difference between these provisions (George v. People, 167 Ill. 447, 
455 (1897)). Therefore, “[t]he right of trial by jury was the same under one 
constitution as under the other,” and the right protected “by each constitution was 
the right of trial by jury as it existed at common law.” (Emphasis added.) Id.  
 
 
 
 
 
- 11 - 
¶ 36 
 
In fact, this court has long interpreted the phrase “as heretofore enjoyed” to 
mean “the right of a trial by jury as it existed under the common law and as enjoyed 
at the time of the adoption of the respective Illinois constitutions.” People v. Lobb, 
17 Ill. 2d 287, 298 (1959). “Thus, it is the common law right to jury trial as enjoyed 
at the time of the adoption of the 1970 constitution to which ‘heretofore enjoyed’ 
refers.” (Emphasis omitted.) Joyce, 126 Ill. 2d at 215; see also People v. Bruner, 
343 Ill. 146, 149 (1931) (“The word ‘heretofore’ evidently relates to the past, and 
to determine the true meaning of the words ‘the right of trial by jury as heretofore 
enjoyed,’ it is necessary to have recourse to the common law of England.”); 
Sinopoli v. Chicago Railways Co., 316 Ill. 609, 616 (1925) (“The provision in each 
[constitution] means the same thing, which is the right of trial by jury as it existed 
at common law and was enjoyed at the adoption of the respective constitutions.”). 
¶ 37 
 
In Joyce, we held that there is a difference in the substance of the right to a jury 
trial afforded under the state and federal constitutions, with our state’s constitution 
offering broader protections. Joyce, 126 Ill. 2d at 214, 222. Accordingly, in the 
present case, we will focus our analysis on the right to an impartial jury in criminal 
prosecutions as set out in the Illinois Constitution and, specifically, as guaranteed 
by the “as heretofore enjoyed” clause in our state’s constitution. 
 
¶ 38 
 
 
 
 
D. The Right to a Jury Trial “as Heretofore Enjoyed” 
¶ 39 
 
Under the Illinois Constitution, “[t]he phrase ‘as heretofore enjoyed’ plainly 
indicates that the drafters intended for certain characteristics of a jury trial to be 
maintained.” Kakos v. Butler, 2016 IL 120377, ¶ 13. The phrase, however, does not 
preserve all the features of the common-law jury trial. Lobb, 17 Ill. 2d at 299. Only 
the “essential features” of a jury trial “known to the common law must be preserved 
and its benefits secured to all entitled to the right.” People v. Kelly, 347 Ill. 221, 
225 (1931). “The constitutional guarantee of the right of trial by jury is not so 
inelastic as to render unchangeable every characteristic and specification of the 
common-law jury system.” Lobb, 17 Ill. 2d at 299. Only the “essentials” of the 
common-law jury system must be retained. Id.  
¶ 40 
 
For example, we have observed that common-law qualifications of jurors, such 
as the sex of a juror or a requirement that they be “freeholders,” are not essential 
elements of the right of trial by jury. Kakos, 2016 IL 120377, ¶¶ 26-27; People 
 
 
 
 
 
- 12 - 
ex rel. Denny v. Traeger, 372 Ill. 11, 14 (1939) (“It is settled that no one set of 
qualifications of jurors was engrafted upon the law by any of the constitutional 
guarantees. Juror qualifications are a matter of legislative control and may differ 
from those qualifications known to the common law.”). 
¶ 41 
 
Therefore, in the present case, we must analyze the common law to determine 
whether a jury sworn with a trial oath was an “essential” part of the right to an 
impartial jury “as heretofore enjoyed” at the time of the adoption of the 1970 
constitution. Joyce, 126 Ill. 2d at 212 (our courts “often look to the common law” 
when determining the essential functions of a jury).3 
  
¶ 42 
 
 
 
 
 E. Common-Law Jury Trials Included Jury Oaths 
¶ 43 
 
Our review of the common law reveals that the practice of swearing the jury 
with a trial oath was firmly entrenched in the common-law concept of a trial by jury 
when each Illinois Constitution was ratified. For example, over 160 years ago, in 
1859, when our state was a little over 40 years old, this court stated that the 
“uniform practice in this State” was to swear juries to try each particular case 
instead of being sworn for the term. Barney v. People, 22 Ill. 160, 160 (1859). This 
court again emphasized the practice of swearing the jury with an oath in Kitter v. 
People, 25 Ill. 42, 42 (1860), where the parties agreed to try five criminal cases 
against a single defendant in front of the same jury but the jury was “sworn to try 
but one case.” In reversing the defendant’s convictions, this court held that the 
parties’ agreement to try the five cases in front of the same jury “did not remove 
the necessity of swearing the jury in each case.” (Emphasis added.) Id.; see also 
People v. Poole, 284 Ill. 39, 40 (1918) (holding that the word “impanel” means “the 
 
 
3Although our analysis in this case focuses on the jury trial guarantee as set out in the Illinois 
Constitution, we note parenthetically that, with respect to interpreting the right to an impartial jury 
established by the sixth amendment to the federal constitution, the United States Supreme Court 
similarly reviewed the status of the common law prior to the ratification of the sixth amendment in 
determining whether the sixth amendment’s right to an “impartial jury” included a requirement of 
juror unanimity. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___, ___, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1395-96 (2020) (by 
the time the States ratified the sixth amendment, “unanimous verdicts had been required for about 
400 years. If the term ‘trial by an impartial jury’ carried any meaning at all, it surely included a 
requirement as long and widely accepted as unanimity.”). 
 
 
 
 
 
- 13 - 
final formation by the court of the jury” and is “the act that precedes the swearing 
of the jury and ascertains who are to be sworn” (Emphases added)). 
¶ 44 
 
Cases from other jurisdictions have also recognized that a jury oath was a 
common practice at common law. See, e.g., Commonwealth ex rel. v. Ashe, 44 Pa. 
D. & C. 337, 339 (1942) (“At common law, when an accused was brought before 
the court, he was first arraigned and the indictment was read in English and he was 
then asked how he would plead; *** if he pleaded not guilty, a jury was called, 
challenged, and sworn, and the trial then proceeded.” (Emphasis added.)); State v. 
Hartley, 40 P. 372, 373 (Nev. 1895) (“The common law: ‘When the trial is called 
on, the jurors are sworn as they appear to the number of twelve, unless they are 
challenged by the party.’ ” (Emphasis added.)). 
¶ 45 
 
Looking back to the common law of England, William Blackstone described 
the criminal trial process in his Commentaries on the Laws of England. 4 
Blackstone included several references to juries being “sworn” in describing the 
common-law criminal jury trial in England. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries 
on the Laws of England 352-55 (1769) (“When the trial is called on, the jurors are 
to be sworn, as they appear, to the number of twelve, unless they are challenged by 
the party. *** However it is held, that the king need not assign his cause of 
challenge, till all the panel is gone through, and unless there cannot be a full jury 
without the persons so challenged. And then, and not sooner, the king’s counsel 
must show the cause: otherwise the juror shall be sworn. *** If, by reason of 
challenges or the default of the jurors, a sufficient number cannot be had of the 
original panel, a tales may be awarded as in civil causes, till the number of twelve 
is sworn, ‘well and truly to try, and true deliverance make, between our sovereign 
lord the king, and the prisoner whom they have in charge; and a true verdict to give, 
according to their evidence.’ When the jury is sworn, if it be a cause of any 
consequence, the indictment is usually opened, and the evidence marshalled, 
examined, and enforced by the counsel for the crown, or prosecution.” (Emphases 
added and omitted.)).  
 
 
4The United States Supreme Court has identified the Commentaries on the Laws of England by 
William Blackstone “as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England.” Schick v. 
United States, 195 U.S. 65, 69 (1904).  
 
 
 
 
 
- 14 - 
¶ 46 
 
In 1827, approximately eight years after Illinois was admitted into the Union, 
the United States Supreme Court described the practice of swearing the jury as 
follows: “The law presumes, that every juror sworn in the case is indifferent and 
above legal exception : for otherwise he may be challenged for cause.” (Emphasis 
added.) United States v. Marchant, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 480, 482 (1827). In United 
States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 66 (1984), the Court again described the practice of 
swearing jurors: “Jurors, of course, take an oath to follow the law as charged, and 
they are expected to follow it.” (Emphasis added.) In 1970, the year Illinois ratified 
its current constitution, the Court stated in Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262, 265 
(1970): “it cannot be supposed that once [veniremen] take their oaths as jurors they 
will be unable ‘to follow conscientiously the instructions of a trial judge’ ” 
(emphasis added) (quoting Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478, 484 (1969)). More 
recently, in Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U.S. 833, 840 (2014) (per curiam), the Court 
expressly held that “[a] jury trial begins, and jeopardy attaches, when the jury is 
sworn.” (Emphasis added.)  
¶ 47 
 
Scholars and commentators who have studied the common law have, likewise, 
concluded that a jury oath was a consistent part of the common-law jury trial. See 
Kathleen M. Knudsen, The Juror’s Sacred Oath: Is There a Constitutional Right to 
a Properly Sworn Jury?, 32 Touro L. Rev. 489, 490 (2016) (“Colonial 
jurisprudence considered it a basic assumption that a jury would be sworn.”); Albert 
W. Alschuler & Andrew G. Deiss, A Brief History of Criminal Jury in the United 
States, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 867, 903 n.187 (1994) (“A statute of the Plymouth 
Colony in 1623 declared that ‘all criminal facts . . . should [be tried] by the verdict 
of twelve Honest men to be Impanelled by Authority in forme of a Jury upon their 
oaths.’ [Citation.]” (Emphasis added.)); Jack Pope, The Jury, 39 Tex. L. Rev. 426, 
437 (1961) (“From the beginning, jurors had to be freemen, had to own property, 
had to come from the vicinity of the dispute, and had to give an oath.” (Emphasis 
added.)); Eric P. Robinson, Virtual Voir Dire: The Law and Ethics of Investigating 
Jurors Online, 36 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 597, 601 (2013) (“[T]he common law 
assumed that a juror’s oath was sufficient to ensure fair-mindedness.” (Emphasis 
added.)); Lysander Spooner, An Essay on the Trial by Jury 85 (1852) (“The oaths 
that have been administered to jurors, in England, and which are their legal guide 
to their duty, all (so far as I have ascertained them) corroborate the idea that the 
jurors are to try all cases on their intrinsic merits, independently of any laws that 
they deem unjust or oppressive.” (Emphases omitted.)); Douglas G. Smith, The 
 
 
 
 
 
- 15 - 
Historical and Constitutional Contexts of Jury Reform, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 377, 428 
n.203 (1996) (the common-law jury that was constitutionally preserved consists of 
jurors “ ‘who are sworn to try the facts of a case as they are delivered from the 
evidence placed before them’ ” (quoting Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on the 
Constitutional Limitations 319 (1868)). 
¶ 48 
 
Accordingly, we are confident that the practice of swearing jurors with a trial 
oath was well established in common law long before the ratification of Illinois’s 
first constitution in 1818. In addition, the jury oath continued to be a universal 
element of all criminal trials at the time Illinois ratified each of its subsequent state 
constitutions in 1848, 1870, and 1970. This conclusion, however, does not end our 
analysis with respect to whether the practice of swearing the jury is preserved in 
our state constitution. As explained above, the phrase “as heretofore enjoyed” in 
the Illinois Constitution preserves only the “essential” elements of the common-
law trial by jury. Lobb, 17 Ill. 2d at 299. Therefore, we must determine whether 
swearing the jury with a trial oath was essential to the common-law system of trial 
by jury. We believe that it was. 
 
¶ 49 
 
 
 
 
 
F. Juror Oath Was an Essential Element of the  
 
 
 
 
 
Common-Law Jury Trial 
¶ 50 
 
The guarantee of a jury trial offers the criminal defendant little, if any, safeguard 
if the jurors are not impartial. Impartiality is “a state of mind.” United States v. 
Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 145 (1936); Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 172 
(1950). A juror’s oath bears directly on the impartiality of the jurors’ state of mind. 
¶ 51 
 
An oath is “ ‘any form of attestation by which a person signifies that he or she 
is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully.’ ” Weydert 
Homes, Inc. v. Kammes, 395 Ill. App. 3d 512, 518 (2009) (quoting 58 Am. Jur. 2d, 
Oath and Affirmation § 3, at 844 (2009)). Oaths have prominence in early American 
law. “Indeed, oaths were held in such high regard by the Framers that a bill 
regarding oaths of office was the first legislation passed by the inaugural Congress 
and signed by President Washington.” Eugene R. Milhizer, So Help Me Allah: An 
Historical and Prudential Analysis of Oaths as Applied to the Current Controversy 
of the Bible and Quran in Oath Practices in America, 70 Ohio St. L.J. 1, 30-31 
(2009).  
 
 
 
 
 
- 16 - 
¶ 52 
 
Swearing jurors with a trial oath directly impacts the state of mind of the 
selected jurors because the oath is essentially a promise to lay aside one’s 
“impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in 
court.” People v. Williams, 40 Ill. 2d 522, 531-32 (1968). It is a “solemn vow to 
serve the rule of law which governs the social contract of our society.” People v. 
Abadia, 328 Ill. App. 3d 669, 676 (2001). The oath, therefore, plays a direct role in 
securing a defendant’s right to an impartial jury. 
¶ 53 
 
“Prospective jurors come from many different backgrounds, and have many 
different attitudes and predispositions.” Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 182-84 
(1986). However, the constitutional right to an impartial jury  
“presupposes that a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community is 
impartial, regardless of the mix of individual viewpoints actually represented 
on the jury, so long as the jurors can conscientiously and properly carry out 
their sworn duty to apply the law to the facts of the particular case.” (Emphasis 
added.) Id. at 184. 
¶ 54 
 
We are not aware of any scientific measure of the impartiality of the minds of 
unsworn jurors in comparison to sworn jurors. However, years ago, this court 
explained the importance of a trial oath in ensuring impartiality in the minds of the 
jurors as follows: “With some jurors and in some cases, too much solemnity cannot 
be observed in the conduct of the trial.” Barney, 22 Ill. at 160. The Barney court 
continued: 
“The solemnity of calling the juror before the [defendant], in the presence of 
the court, and his there taking the solemn oath prescribed by law, to well and 
truly try and true deliverance make of that [defendant], not only gives the 
[defendant] a comfortable assurance that he is to have a fair and impartial trial, 
but has a salutary tendency to prepare the mind of the juror for the solemn duty 
he is assuming.” Id. 
This observation remains as true today as it was over 160 years ago. Although the 
Barney court did not expressly hold that the oath was an essential element of the 
right to an impartial jury preserved by our state’s constitution, the Barney court’s 
discussion, nonetheless, explicitly highlights the important role the jury oath serves 
in assembling an impartial jury.  
 
 
 
 
 
- 17 - 
¶ 55 
 
In Sinopoli, 316 Ill. at 617-18, this court discussed the essential elements of a 
jury trial encompassed within the “heretofore” clause of the Illinois Constitution 
that “cannot be dispensed with or disregarded on the trial of a person charged with 
a felony.” Those elements included 12 jurors appearing before an officer vested 
with authority to “ ‘administer oaths to them.’ ” Id. (quoting Capital Traction Co. 
v. Hof, 174 U.S. 1, 13 (1898)).  
¶ 56 
 
Over the years, other jurisdictions have also recognized that the practice of 
swearing the jury is an essential element of a criminal jury trial. In People v. 
Pribble, 249 N.W.2d 363, 366 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976), the court explained: 
 
“The required oath is not a mere ‘formality’ which is required only by 
tradition. The oath represents a solemn promise on the part of each juror to do 
his duty according to the dictates of the law to see that justice is done. This duty 
is not just a final duty to render a verdict in accordance with the law, but the 
duty to act in accordance with the law at all stages of trial. The oath is 
administered to insure that the jurors pay attention to the evidence, observe the 
credibility and demeanor of the witnesses[,] and conduct themselves at all 
times, as befits one holding such an important position.”  
¶ 57 
 
In Miller v. State, 84 So. 161, 162 (Miss. 1920), the Supreme Court of 
Mississippi emphasized the importance of the jury oath as follows: 
“To say that the jury gave the same careful and conscientious consideration to 
the evidence when they heard it while not acting under the sanctity of an oath 
as they would have given had they been bound and obligated by a solemn oath 
would be to enter the field of speculation, and to so decide would be to say that 
this court could look into the minds of the jurors and determine with certainty 
that the effect of a solemn oath upon them would have made no change in the 
conscientious manner in which they received and considered the evidence 
offered in the case. It would seem to be more probable, in such a case, that the 
sanctity of an oath would have its bearing and influence upon the jurors in their 
consideration of the proof before them.” 
¶ 58 
 
In Commonwealth v. Fugmann, 198 A. 99, 111 (Pa. 1938), the Supreme Court 
of Pennsylvania determined that the essential elements of a common-law criminal 
trial included “a jury composed of twelve eligible persons duly summoned, sworn, 
 
 
 
 
 
- 18 - 
and impaneled for the trial of the issue” and that a departure from the essential 
elements would be a deprivation of “the right to trial by jury.” (Emphases added.) 
See also State v. Holm, 224 P.2d 500, 509 (Wyo. 1950) (citing Fugmann, 198 A. at 
111); State v. Godfrey, 666 P.2d 1080, 1082 (Ariz. 1983) (“[T]he juror’s oath is an 
essential element of the constitutional guarantee to a trial by an ‘impartial’ jury. 
And if the oath were not given at all we would have no hesitation in finding 
reversible error even absent any showing of actual prejudice.” (Emphasis added.)); 
State v. Roberge, 582 A.2d 142, 144 (Vt. 1990) (same); Steele v. State, 446 N.E.2d 
353, 354 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (“The oath given to a jury prior to the commencement 
of a trial is not a mere formality. It is intended to impress upon the jury its solemn 
duty to carefully deliberate on the matter at issue. Most importantly the oath serves 
as a safeguard of a criminal defendant’s fundamental constitutional right to trial by 
an impartial jury.”); State v. Saybolt, 461 N.W.2d 729, 737 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990) 
(“[Juror oaths] are not formalities, are sacred, and no citizen need expose himself 
to loss of liberty and property by people who are not sworn to do their duty.” 
(Emphasis in original.)); Slaughter v. State, 28 S.E. 159, 161 (Ga. 1897) (in 
criminal cases, “a total failure to swear the jury is a matter which cannot, in any 
manner or under any circumstances, be waived; and, as a consequence, a conviction 
by an unsworn jury is a mere nullity”); Howard v. State, 192 S.W. 770, 772 (Tex. 
Crim. App. 1917) (“It has not been held, so far as we have been able to discover, 
that a jury could possibly be a jury until it had been sworn to try the particular 
case.”); State v. Martin, 255 N.W.2d 844, 848 (Neb. 1977) (“[I]n criminal cases it 
is essential to the validity of the proceeding that the jury should be sworn.”); State 
v. Baldwin, 12 P. 318, 321 (Kan. 1886) (“It is highly important and necessary that 
the oath should be administered with due solemnity, in the presence of the 
[defendant], and before the court, substantially in the manner prescribed by law.”); 
People v. Pelton, 7 P.2d 205, 205 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1931) (“[W]hile mere 
irregularities in the swearing or in the form of oath may be waived by failing to 
object until after a verdict, an entire failure to swear the jury cannot be waived in 
any manner or under any circumstances. A conviction by an unsworn jury is a 
nullity.”); State v. Moore, 49 S.E. 1015, 1016 (W.Va. 1905) (“It is hardly necessary 
to cite authorities to show that a person cannot be legally convicted unless the 
record shows that the jury which tried the case were sworn according to law.”); 
Dresch v. State, 14 Tex. App. 175, 178 (1883) (“It has been repeatedly held that the 
record must show affirmatively that the jury which tried the case were sworn. When 
 
 
 
 
 
- 19 - 
the record omits to show this, the conviction can not stand.”); Dyson v. State, 722 
So. 2d 782, 785 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) (“The failure to administer the oath to the 
jury renders the jury’s verdict a nullity.”); Alston v. State, 934 A.2d 949, 962 (Md. 
Ct. Spec. App. 2007) (“The oath, for centuries, has been viewed as a solemn 
promise to undertake one of the most serious of legal, civic, and moral 
responsibilities. Without an oath, a defendant is denied full assurance of a fair and 
impartial jury.”); State v. Barone, 986 P.2d 5, 17 (Or. 1999) (“The jury oath is 
designed to vindicate a defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights to a fair trial 
before an impartial jury.”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1086 (2000); State v. Shaw, 636 
S.W.2d 667, 671 (Mo. 1982) (en banc) (“The jury does not exist until the veniremen 
selected therefor are sworn to service in that capacity.”); State v. Davis, 52 Vt. 376, 
381 (1880) (“[The criminal oath to be administered to a jury] is not only a summary 
of the duties of the jurors, but is also the only security which the State and the 
respondent have for a faithful, fearless discharge of those duties. It has been so 
regarded for many centuries.”); Chiles v. State, 45 Ark. 143, 146 (1885) (“The 
record should show that the jurors were thus sworn, and this record fails to do so. 
*** For this there must be a reversal.”); Zapf v. State, 17 So. 225, 225 (Fla. 1895) 
([T]he court awarded a new trial because “[t]he record [was] fatally defective in not 
showing that the jury were sworn. *** The fact of the jury being sworn should 
appear of record.”).5 
¶ 59 
 
Under federal law, the United States Supreme Court has also suggested that 
swearing the jury is an essential element in securing an impartial jury. In Lockhart, 
476 U.S. at 184, the Court stated that “the Constitution presupposes that a jury 
selected from a fair cross section of the community is impartial *** so long as the 
jurors can conscientiously and properly carry out their sworn duty to apply the law 
to the facts of the particular case.” (Emphasis added.) In Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 
1025, 1036 (1984), the Court addressed a criminal defendant’s argument that a juror 
was erroneously seated over his challenges for cause. The Court stated that, in 
addressing a defendant’s challenge to an individual juror’s partiality, the key 
question was “did a juror swear that he could set aside any opinion he might hold 
and decide the case on the evidence, and should the juror’s protestation of 
impartiality have been believed.” (Emphasis added.) Id. In Pena-Rodriguez v. 
 
 
5We cite these decisions from other jurisdictions only to highlight the extent that other courts 
have recognized the essential role that the jury oath serves in the criminal jury trial process. 
 
 
 
 
 
- 20 - 
Colorado, 580 U.S. ___, ___, 137 S. Ct. 855, 868 (2017), the Court recently 
emphasized that “[j]urors are presumed to follow their oath.” (Emphasis added.) 
Likewise, in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 (1985), the Court held that 
“[t]he proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excluded 
for cause” “is whether the juror’s views would ‘prevent or substantially impair the 
performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his 
oath.’ ” (Emphasis added.) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 (1980)). In 
Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 564 (1976), the Court discussed the 
option of sequestering a jury in cases involving pretrial publicity as follows: 
“Although that measure insulates jurors only after they are sworn, it also enhances 
the likelihood of dissipating the impact of pretrial publicity and emphasizes the 
elements of the jurors’ oaths.” (Emphases added.). In United States v. Olano, 507 
U.S. 725, 740 (1993), the Court stated that jurors “commence[ ] their office with an 
oath.” (Emphasis added). In these cases, the Supreme Court has not expressly stated 
that the jury oath is an essential element of a trial by an impartial jury, but the 
language strongly suggests that the Court believes that it is essential. 
¶ 60 
 
Therefore, based on our review of Illinois caselaw, federal caselaw, and caselaw 
from our sister states, we are confident that American courts have long viewed the 
jury oath as serving an essential role in assembling an impartial jury. Importantly, 
in interpreting the “as heretofore enjoyed” language in article I, section 13, of the 
Illinois Constitution, given the broadly recognized importance of the jury oath in 
the criminal jury trial process, we are equally confident that the drafters of the 
Illinois Constitution intended that the common-law practice of swearing the jury be 
retained and secured for criminal defendants in Illinois. Therefore, the practice of 
swearing jurors with a trial oath is guaranteed by the “heretofore enjoyed” clause 
in our state’s constitution. See, e.g., Kakos, 2016 IL 120377, ¶ 28 (“Because the 
size of the jury—12 people—was an essential element of the right of trial by jury 
enjoyed at the time the 1970 Constitution was drafted, we conclude jury size is an 
element of the right that has been preserved and protected in the constitution.”). 
This does not end our analysis because we must next determine, under the second 
prong of the plain error rule, whether deprivation of this constitutional right 
amounts to structural error. We believe that it does. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 21 - 
¶ 61 
 
 
 
 
 
G. Failure to Swear Jurors With a  
 
 
 
 
 
Trial Oath Constitutes Structural Error 
¶ 62 
 
When we consider the essential purpose of the jury oath along with its long and 
storied history, it does not require much additional analysis to reach the conclusion 
that failure to administer a trial oath to the jury at any time prior to the jury 
rendering its verdict constitutes structural error.6 This error affects the framework 
within which the trial proceeds, rather than being merely an error in the trial process 
itself. The jury oath is more than a mere formality. The defendant is entitled to  
“a jury composed of persons who have sworn on their oaths that they can lay 
aside anything that they might have learned about the case from whatever 
source together with any opinions they may have formed and judge the case 
solely on the facts produced in open court and on the law given them by the 
trial judge.” (Emphasis added.) People v. Farris, 82 Ill. App. 3d 147, 152 (1980) 
(citing Williams, 40 Ill. 2d 522). 
¶ 63 
 
The purpose of an oath is to impress upon the swearing juror an appropriate 
sense of obligation in carrying out his or her duties as a juror. By solemnly swearing 
to deliver a true verdict according to the law and evidence, the juror takes an oath 
of office that “implicitly invites punishment” should the promise be broken. Black’s 
Law Dictionary 1099 (7th ed. 1999). The jury oath, therefore, preserves the 
integrity of the jury trial process by impressing upon the jurors their sacred duty to 
render a true verdict in accordance with the law and evidence, thereby ensuring the 
defendant’s right to an impartial jury is honored by the persons being sworn.  
¶ 64 
 
Accordingly, the complete failure to swear the jury with a trial oath is an error 
of such gravity that it threatens the integrity of the judicial process. Depriving a 
defendant of a sworn jury deprives that defendant of a basic protection afforded at 
common law that is specifically designed to ensure that the jury is impartial. 
Moreover, it is a protection guaranteed in our state constitution. Therefore, a 
criminal trial in front of an unsworn jury cannot reliably serve as a method for 
 
 
6We offer no opinion on whether a criminal defendant is denied his or her constitutional right 
to an impartial jury when there is some delay in swearing a jury with a trial oath. Our analysis 
addresses only the complete failure to swear the jury with a trial oath prior to the jury rendering its 
verdict. 
 
 
 
 
 
- 22 - 
determining guilt or innocence, and the unsworn status of the jury in this case 
constitutes second prong plain error. 
¶ 65 
 
Another factor contributing to our conclusion that the error is structural is the 
difficulty of measuring the impartiality of unsworn jurors. For example, in United 
States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 148-49 (2006), the Court had to determine 
whether the denial of a defendant’s right to counsel of his choice constituted 
structural error. In concluding that it was structural error and not subject to 
harmless-error analysis, the Court noted, in part, as follows: 
“It is impossible to know what different choices the rejected counsel would 
have made, and then to quantify the impact of those different choices on the 
outcome of the proceeding. *** Harmless-error analysis in such a context 
would be a speculative inquiry into what might have occurred in an alternative 
universe.” Id. at 150. 
See also Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 263 (1986) (“[W]hen a petit jury has 
been selected upon improper criteria or has been exposed to prejudicial publicity, 
we have required reversal of the conviction because the effect of the violation 
cannot be ascertained.”).  
¶ 66 
 
Likewise, as we have explained, swearing the jury is part of the very framework 
within which the trial proceeds, but the effect of a complete failure to administer a 
jury oath is difficult, if not impossible, to measure because the error concerns the 
subjective frame of mind of the individual jurors. Therefore, like the Supreme Court 
in Gonzalez-Lopez, “we rest our conclusion of structural error[, at least in part,] 
upon the difficulty of assessing the effect of the error.” Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 
at 149 n.4; see also Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 49, n.9 (1984) (violation of the 
public-trial guarantee is not subject to harmless review because “the benefits of a 
public trial are frequently intangible, difficult to prove, or a matter of chance”). This 
court has adhered to the principles set out in Gonzalez-Lopez in evaluating 
structural error as a matter of state law. See People v. Stoecker, 2020 IL 124807, 
¶ 24 (discussing Gonzalez-Lopez). 
¶ 67 
 
In addition to the above analysis, we believe that the double jeopardy clauses 
of the federal and state constitutions also support our conclusion that a complete 
failure to administer a jury oath in a criminal jury trial is structural error. Under the 
 
 
 
 
 
- 23 - 
double jeopardy clauses of the respective constitutions, a defendant cannot be put 
in jeopardy twice for the same offense. U.S. Const., amend. V; Ill. Const. 1970, art. 
I, § 10. In addition, both this court and the Supreme Court have plainly established 
that, under both constitutions, jeopardy does not attach until the jury is selected and 
sworn. Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 387 (1975) (“In the case of a jury 
trial, jeopardy attaches when a jury is empaneled and sworn.” (Emphasis added.)); 
People v. Bellmyer, 199 Ill. 2d 529, 538 (2002) (“In Illinois, jeopardy attaches in a 
jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn.” (Emphasis added.)). In fact, the 
Supreme Court has noted that “[t]here are few if any rules of criminal procedure 
clearer than the rule that ‘jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and 
sworn.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Martinez, 572 U.S. at 839 (quoting Crist v. Bretz, 437 
U.S. 28, 35 (1978)).  
¶ 68 
 
Because jeopardy does not attach until the jury is sworn, in the event that an 
unsworn jury returns a verdict of acquittal, the State may retry the defendant for the 
same offense because jeopardy never attached. See Spencer v. State, 640 S.E.2d 
267, 268 (Ga. 2007) (holding that a not guilty verdict by an unsworn jury did not 
bar retrial in the same charge because the jury was without authority to render a 
verdict and double jeopardy never attached); United States v. Wedalowski, 572 F.2d 
69, 75 (2d Cir. 1978) (“It thus seems clear that in the case at bar, the jury never 
having been sworn to try this indictment, jeopardy never attached, [and] retrial of 
defendant is not prohibited by the Sixth Amendment ***.”). 
¶ 69 
 
In Crist, the Court held that the rule “ ‘that jeopardy attaches in jury trials when 
the jury is sworn’ ” is an “integral part of the constitutional guarantee” against 
double jeopardy. (Emphasis added.) Crist, 437 U.S. at 32-36. Establishing the jury 
swearing as the moment when jeopardy attaches was not “an arbitrary exercise of 
linedrawing” but instead is “a settled part of federal constitutional law” that 
“protects the defendant’s interest in retaining a chosen jury.” Id. at 37-38. 
Therefore, swearing the jury serves as the “ ‘lynchpin’ ” moment for all double 
jeopardy jurisprudence. Id. at 38 (quoting Bretz v. Crist, 546 F.2d 1336, 1343 (9th 
Cir. 1976)). “A jury trial begins, and jeopardy attaches, when the jury is sworn.” 
Martinez, 572 U.S. at 840; see also United States v. Green, 556 F.2d 71, 72 (D.C. 
Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (“[U]ntil a jury has been sworn to try the case *** a 
defendant is subject to no jeopardy, for the twelve individuals in the box have no 
power to convict him.”). 
 
 
 
 
 
- 24 - 
¶ 70 
 
It seems self-evident that a procedural step that is the crucial moment in every 
criminal proceeding that places a criminal defendant in jeopardy is, by necessity, 
an essential element of all criminal jury trial proceedings. An error that prevents 
jeopardy from attaching affects the very framework within which the trial proceeds 
and cannot be logically categorized as a mere trial error. Therefore, in the present 
case, that jeopardy never attached to the defendant further supports our conclusion 
that the error is structural and requires automatic reversal. 
¶ 71 
 
In addition to double jeopardy concerns, we also note that “[i]t has long been 
recognized that once a juror has been accepted and sworn, neither party has the 
right to peremptorily challenge that juror.” (Emphasis added.) People v. Peeples, 
205 Ill. 2d 480, 520 (2002). The swearing of the jury, therefore, is a defining 
moment that substantially impacts many crucial facets of the criminal jury trial 
process. 
¶ 72 
 
The appellate court in this case held that the failure to swear the jury was not 
second prong plain error under the facts of this case because the questions and 
admonishments of the circuit court during voir dire, along with the circuit court’s 
other instructions and admonishments, sufficiently addressed the purposes of a jury 
oath. 2020 IL App (1st) 170675, ¶ 46. However, the appellate court’s second prong 
plain error analysis is flawed in two important aspects. First, the appellate court 
failed to consider the express language of our state constitution, which preserves 
the essential elements of the common-law right to a trial by jury, and as we 
explained above, a trial oath administered to the jury is one of those essential 
elements. The appellate majority’s analysis, therefore, does not properly account 
for the protections afforded by our state’s constitution.  
¶ 73 
 
Second, the appellate court’s second prong plain error analysis in this case is, 
in substance, a fact-specific inquiry into whether the structural error prejudiced the 
defendant. The appellate court looked at other aspects of the trial and concluded 
that failure to swear the jury did not affect the outcome of the trial. Id. This is not 
proper analysis under the second prong of Illinois’s plain error rule. 
¶ 74 
 
As we have explained, under Illinois’s well-established plain error standard, we 
have equated second prong plain error with structural error. Structural error, in turn, 
requires a reversal regardless of the effect of the error on the outcome of the trial. 
Therefore, under the second prong of Illinois’s plain error rule, the court must 
 
 
 
 
 
- 25 - 
determine whether structural error occurred, and once structural error is found, 
automatic reversal is required. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186-87. Additional analysis of 
other aspects of the trial to determine whether the defendant was prejudiced by the 
structural error is not appropriate analysis under the second prong of the plain error 
rule. Errors that fall within the purview of the second prong of the plain error rule 
are “presumptively prejudicial errors—errors that may not have affected the 
outcome, but must still be remedied” because the error “deprive[d] the defendant 
of a fair trial.” Id. at 185.  
¶ 75 
 
The appellate court’s error stems from its reliance on the majority’s analysis in 
People v. Cain, 869 N.W.2d 829 (Mich. 2015), which concluded that failure to 
swear the jury was not structural error. The appellate court’s reliance on Cain is 
misplaced. In addition to the obvious distinction that Cain does not analyze the 
right to a jury trial as preserved by the “as heretofore enjoyed” clause in our state’s 
constitution, the Cain court also applied a plain error standard that contradicts 
Illinois’s second prong plain error analysis.  
¶ 76 
 
Under the plain error standards applied in Cain, structural errors do not 
necessarily constitute plain error or an automatic reversal. See id. at 833-34. 
Instead, the majority in Cain held that the court need not decide whether the error 
constituted structural error “because it is undisputed that since this is an 
unpreserved error, defendant must satisfy the [four-part] plain-error standard of 
[People v. Carines, 597 N.W.2d 130 (Mich. 1999)].” Id. at 834 n.4. The Cain court, 
therefore, did not analyze whether failure to swear the jury was structural error but 
instead engaged in a fact-specific, case-specific inquiry to determine whether the 
failure to swear the jury impacted the outcome of the trial regardless of whether the 
error was structural error. Id. at 835.  
¶ 77 
 
Our second prong plain error standard is not the same. In fact, this court has 
previously rejected a request to adopt a four-part plain error test similar to that 
utilized by the Cain court. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 170. Although we found that 
Illinois’s two-prong test was similar to this four-part test, we also observed that 
there are differences that have arisen between the two tests as a result of “a function 
of the common law process.” Id. at 186.  
¶ 78 
 
In the present case, unlike the plain error analysis set out in Cain, under 
Illinois’s second prong plain error standard, we must analyze whether failure to 
 
 
 
 
 
- 26 - 
swear the jury was structural error, and if so, reversal is automatic without a fact-
specific inquiry to determine whether the unpreserved structural error impacted the 
outcome of the trial. See also People v. Baez, 241 Ill. 2d 44, 105 (2011) (finding 
violations of the right to counsel of choice to be “structural errors not subject to 
harmless-error review, and they therefore do not depend on a demonstration of 
prejudice by defendant”).  
¶ 79 
 
As the dissent in Cain correctly observed, “[a]s a matter of transitive logic, the 
fact that the defendant has proved that a particular error is structural should also be 
sufficient to make the presumptive case that the fairness, integrity, or public 
reputation of the proceedings has been seriously affected.” Cain, 869 N.W.2d at 
851 (Viviano, J., dissenting, joined by McCormack, J.). In Illinois, we have 
explicitly linked structural error to second prong plain error, requiring reversal 
without a showing of prejudice. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 185. Therefore, only the 
dissent in Cain is instructive in evaluating plain error under Illinois law; the Cain 
majority’s analysis is not. 
¶ 80 
 
Likewise, for these same reasons, the State’s reliance on United States v. 
Turrietta, 696 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2012), is misplaced. See id. at 976 n.9 (applying 
a similar four-part plain error test, the court held that the gravity of the asserted 
error “has little bearing on the application of the plain error test” and that “[w]hether 
an error can be properly characterized as ‘structural’ has nothing to do with plain 
error review”). Turrietta’s plain error analysis is not instructive in applying 
Illinois’s second prong plain error standard. 
¶ 81 
 
In arguing against automatic reversal, the State contends that defendants should 
not be rewarded for silently watching a curable error and holding the objection until 
after the jury returns its verdict. We do not share the State’s concern about this type 
of gamesmanship arising from an automatic reversal in this case. Obviously, in any 
criminal jury trial, the primary objective of the defendant and his attorney in going 
to trial is securing an acquittal. A trial before an unsworn jury cannot result in an 
acquittal because the defendant has yet to be placed in jeopardy before the jury is 
sworn. After an acquittal by an unsworn jury, the prohibition against double 
jeopardy would not bar the State from retrying the defendant on the same charges 
because jeopardy never attached. Therefore, no competent defense attorney would 
consider knowingly trying a case before an unsworn jury to be a viable strategy 
 
 
 
 
 
- 27 - 
option. Gamesmanship by the defense bar is not likely to occur over the unsworn 
status of the jury when doing so would defeat any acquittal secured by a trial before 
the unsworn jury.  
¶ 82 
 
We also note that the appellate court in the present case placed some 
significance on the fact that the circuit court administered the voir dire oath to the 
jury. Specifically, the appellate court stated, “we need not resolve the effect under 
Illinois law of a forfeited claim of a trial by an unsworn jury because the jury here 
was not completely unsworn.” 2020 IL App (1st) 170675, ¶ 43. We disagree with 
this conclusion. 
¶ 83 
 
When the clerk swore the already-selected jurors with the voir dire oath, the 
jurors solemnly swore only to truthfully answer any questions asked about their 
qualifications for being jurors. At that point in the proceeding, however, the jurors 
had completed answering all questions about their qualifications; no one asked 
them any further questions about their qualifications after the oath. There is a 
profound distinction between the voir dire oath and an oath to fairly try the case. 
See Miller, 84 So. at 161-62 (“The preliminary oath administered to the jurors, 
before the voir dire examination, for the purpose of ascertaining their qualifications 
as jurors, was certainly not an oath to try the issue joined between the state and the 
accused.”). Here, the voir dire oath given to the jury made no mention of the jurors’ 
solemn obligation to fairly try the issues in the case in accordance with the law and 
evidence and render a true verdict. Therefore, contrary to the appellate court’s 
conclusion, this case does, in fact, present us with a forfeited challenge to a 
conviction handed down by a jury that was never sworn to try the case; it was an 
unsworn jury.  
  
¶ 84 
 
 
 
 
 
H. Required Content of Juror’s Trial Oath in  
 
 
 
 
 
Criminal Jury Trials 
¶ 85 
 
Both the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) and the rules of this court 
reference the practice of swearing the jury in criminal trials. See 725 ILCS 5/115-
4(g) (West 2018) (“After the jury is impaneled and sworn the court may direct the 
selection of 2 alternative jurors who shall take the same oath as the regular jurors.”); 
Ill. S. Ct. R. 434(e) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) (same). In addition, section 20 of the Jury 
Act also references the practice of swearing the jury. 705 ILCS 305/20(a) (West 
 
 
 
 
 
- 28 - 
2018) (“It shall be the duty of the clerk of the court *** to write the name of each 
petit juror summoned and retained for that week on a separate ticket, and put the 
whole into a box or other place for safekeeping; and as often as it shall be necessary 
to impanel a jury, the clerk, sheriff or coroner shall, in the presence of the court, 
draw by chance 12 names (or 14 where alternate jurors are required) out of such 
box or other place, which shall designate the persons to be sworn on the jury.” 
(Emphasis added.)). However, there is no Illinois statute or rule that sets out a 
specific form or content for a trial oath to be given to jurors in a criminal trial.7  
¶ 86 
 
The constitutionally required jury oath is a matter of substance, not form. It has 
been stated that the jury oath “at common law in criminal cases was: ‘You shall 
well and truly try, and true deliverance make between our Sovereign Lord the King 
and the prisoner at the bar, whom you shall have in charge, and a true verdict give 
according to the evidence. So help you God.’ ” 50A C.J.S. Juries § 524 (Feb. 2022 
Update). In other jurisdictions, the exact language varies, but the elements of a jury 
oath that are common across the jurisdictions include solemnity, a decision based 
on the law and evidence, and a fair or true verdict. Knudsen, supra, at 495.  
¶ 87 
 
Likewise, we conclude that the essential elements of the juror’s trial oath that 
is preserved in our state’s constitution include solemnity, a decision based on the 
law and evidence, and a fair or true verdict. These elements are consistent with the 
common-law jury oath. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 170, 173 (1895) 
(Gray, J., dissenting, joined by Shiras, J.) (“before and since the adoption of the 
constitution,” selected jurors have been required to swear an oath that they will 
“well and truly try and true deliverance make between the government and the 
prisoner at the bar, according to their evidence”); Beale v. Commonwealth, 25 Pa. 
11, 17 (1855) (articulating the common-law form of a juror’s oath in criminal 
cases).  
 
 
7Section 112-2 of the Code sets out an oath to be administered to grand juries (725 ILCS 5/112-
2 (West 2018)), section 3-3034 of the Counties Code sets out the oath to be given to a coroner’s jury 
(55 ILCS 5/3-3024 (West 2018)), section 10-5-40 of the Eminent Domain Act (735 ILCS 30/10-5-
40 (West 2018)) sets out the oath to be given to jurors in an eminent domain case, and section 5-9 
of the Illinois Drainage Code (70 ILCS 605/5-9 (West 2018)) sets out the oath to be given to jurors 
in drainage proceedings. However, there is no similar statutory provision or rule establishing the 
specific trial oath to be given to selected jurors in a criminal jury trial.  
 
 
 
 
 
- 29 - 
¶ 88 
 
The formality of a trial oath that includes these elements will ensure that the 
members of the jury have committed to a solemn duty to lay aside their impressions 
or opinions, carefully deliberate on the matter at issue, and render a verdict based 
on the law and evidence in court, thus preserving the defendant’s constitutional 
right to an impartial jury. Accordingly, to pass constitutional muster under our 
state’s constitution, a jury must be sworn with an oath that substantially 
incorporates these elements. 
¶ 89 
 
“A criminal defendant, whether guilty or innocent, is entitled to a fair, orderly, 
and impartial trial *** conducted according to law.” People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179, 
214 (1998). In a criminal jury trial, the jurors are empowered to declare the 
defendant guilty of a crime and subject to punishment by our government, including 
loss of liberty. The need for impartiality in the individuals serving in this capacity 
cannot be overstated.  
¶ 90 
 
We recognize that there are several pretrial and trial procedures in place that 
further the goal of protecting a defendant’s right to an impartial jury. See Groppi v. 
Wisconsin, 400 U.S. 505, 509-10 (1971). The jury trial oath, however, plays an 
essential role in ensuring impartiality in the minds of individuals once they have 
been selected to serve as jurors. In addition, the jury oath has been an essential 
element of the criminal jury trial process long before Illinois ratified its first state 
constitution. The language of our state constitution preserves the practice of 
swearing the jury for every criminal defendant facing criminal prosecution in this 
state. Accordingly, a trial before an unsworn jury deprives a criminal defendant of 
the right to a jury trial as guaranteed by our state’s constitution.  
¶ 91 
 
In addition, given the significance of the jury oath to ensuring juror impartiality, 
we cannot say that a conviction before an unsworn jury was secured by a 
fundamentally fair process. Instead, upholding a conviction before an unsworn jury 
would undermine the integrity of the very foundation of our system of criminal 
justice, that foundation being the fundamental right to trial by an impartial jury. 
This error, in and of itself, casts doubt upon the reliability of the judicial process. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 30 - 
¶ 92 
 
 
 
 
 
III. CONCLUSION 
¶ 93 
 
For the foregoing reasons, under the second prong of the plain error rule, we 
exercise our discretion to address this forfeited error, reverse the defendant’s 
conviction and sentence, and remand to the circuit court for a new trial. Because 
jeopardy never attached, the State is not precluded on double jeopardy grounds 
from retrying the defendant on remand. 
 
¶ 94 
 
Reversed and remanded.