Court Opinion

ID: 9859948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:01:05.418562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:10:05.686634
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GILLERAN JOHNSON, dissenting: The defendant’s conviction and sentence should be affirmed. Contrary to the majority’s conclusion, the trial court’s determination that the defendant had not been deprived of her right to testify was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. At the hearing on her posttrial motion, the defendant was the only person to testify. She testified that she wanted to testify at trial but that her attorney would not allow her. The majority places great weight on the fact that the State did not call any witnesses to contradict her testimony. The majority claims that because her testimony was “uncontroverted,” the trial court erred in not accepting it. This is incorrect. A trier of fact cannot arbitrarily reject testimony that is uncontroverted, either by positive testimony or circumstances, or where the witness is not impeached, but can reject testimony that is inherently improbable, contrary to the laws of nature, or contains its own impeachment. Burns v. Stouffer, 344 Ill. App. 105, 109 (1951). Also, in reviewing the defendant’s testimony, the trial court is not required to consider it in a vacuum. Indeed, the purpose of a posttrial motion is to alert the trial court to trial errors so that a new trial may be granted if warranted. People v. Miraglia, 323 Ill. App. 3d 199, 203-04 (2001). If a trial court could not consider all the evidence at trial, it could not make a fully informed decision as to whether a new trial should be granted. Thus, in considering the defendant’s testimony at the posttrial hearing, the trial court could properly consider her testimony in the context of all the material before it in the record. See Miraglia, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 203-04. The record reveals that during the altercation between herself and the DCFS caseworker, the defendant told her son to remember his fifth amendment rights and that he did not have to say anything. She later gave a similar instruction to her husband. When contacted by the police, she indicated that she would not come in until she had spoken with her attorney. Such comments demonstrate that the defendant had a strong familiarity with fundamental constitutional rights. The trial court could properly take this fact into consideration in determining whether defense counsel had overborne the defendant’s desire to exercise her constitutional right and to testify on her behalf. See Miraglia, 323 Ill. App. 3d at 203-04. Indeed, the trial court would have been remiss had it not considered the defendant’s exhibited knowledge of her constitutional rights. See People v. Houston, 174 Ill. App. 3d 584, 589 (1988) (to reverse conviction in view of defendant’s exhibited legal sophistication and knowledge would defeat the ends of justice); see also People v. Cordevant, 297 Ill. App. 3d 193, 205 (1988) (defendant’s demonstrated level of sophistication indicated that he would have been capable of raising allegations before trial court). Thus, based on this record, there is ample support for the trial court’s conclusion that defense counsel did not prevent the defendant from testifying but rather that the defendant chose not to testify, on the basis of trial strategy. Nonetheless, even if the trial court erred in determining whether defense counsel had interfered with the defendant’s right to testify, the defendant would not be entitled to any relief. As the majority sets forth, the right to testify is a fundamental right. See People v. Brown, 336 Ill. App. 3d 711, 719 (2002). Notwithstanding the fundamental nature of this right, the majority then proceeds into a harmless error analysis to determine if the defendant was prejudiced. The majority also addresses this issue under the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984). The majority’s approach, however, avoids any discussion as to whether a harmless error analysis is appropriate when such a fundamental right is at stake. This is an issue that has divided courts throughout our country. In some jurisdictions, courts have determined that the right to testify is so fundamental that it is not amenable to a harmless error analysis. See State v. Hampton, 818 So. 2d 720, 727 (La. 2002); United States v. Butts, 630 F. Supp. 1145, 1148 (D. Me. 1986); State v. Rosillo, 281 N.W.2d 877, 879 (Minn. 1979). Most courts that have addressed the issue, however, have determined that a harmless error analysis is applicable or that the prejudice prong of Strickland must be established if the defendant is to prove ineffective assistance of counsel as a result of counsel’s unilateral waiver of the right to testify. See Quarels v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W.3d 73, 81 (Ky. 2004) (citing cases that have so held from the Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits); Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152, 166-67 (Tenn. 1999) (citing cases that have so held from California, Hawaii, Michigan, New Hampshire, Utah, and Wisconsin). In determining whether a harmless error analysis is appropriate, these courts have generally considered the issue in the context of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705, 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967), and Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 306, 113 L. Ed. 2d 302, 329, 11 S. Ct. 1246, 1263 (1991). In Chapman, the Supreme Court adopted the general rule that a constitutional error does not automatically require reversal of a conviction. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 306, 113 L. Ed. 2d at 329, 111 S. Ct. at 1263. In Fulminante, the Supreme Court explained that a harmless error analysis is appropriate when addressing “trial errors” but not “structural defects” in the constitution of the trial mechanism. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 309-10, 113 L. Ed. 2d at 331, 111 S. Ct. at 1265. Examples of structural errors include when the defendant is not represented by counsel and when the trial judge is not impartial. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 309-10, 113 L. Ed. 2d at 331, 111 S. Ct. at 1265. Trial errors pertain to “error[s] which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307-08, 113 L. Ed. 2d at 330, 111 S. Ct. at 1264. Examples of trial errors include a jury instruction that misstates an element of an offense, the restriction of a defendant’s right to cross-examine a witness for bias, and the denial of a defendant’s right to be present at trial. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 306-07, 113 L. Ed. 2d at 329-30, 111 S. Ct. at 1263. The Illinois Supreme Court has not specifically addressed this issue since the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Fulminante. However, prior to Fulminante, the Illinois Supreme Court had determined that the deprivation of one’s right to testify was subject to a harmless error analysis. See People v. Prim, 53 Ill. 2d 62, 67 (1972) (determining that denial of defendant’s right to testify at suppression hearing was harmless error). Since Fulminante, the Illinois Supreme Court has also determined that if the defendant claims that his counsel interfered with his fundamental right not to testify, the defendant must satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland analysis. See People v. Madej, 177 Ill. 2d 116, 146 (1997). Thus, it is likely that the Illinois Supreme Court would determine that the deprivation of the right to testify is subject to a harmless error analysis under Fulminante for the same reasons set forth in Momon: “Unlike such defects as a complete deprivation of counsel or trial before a biased judge, denial of the defendant’s right to testify does not in all cases render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or call into question the reliability of the trial as a vehicle for determining guilt or innocence. Such an error involves the exclusion of testimony which is evidence that can be ‘quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 307, 111 S. Ct. at 1264. In some cases, ‘the defendant’s testimony would have no impact, or even a negative impact, on the result of trial.’ United States v. Tavares, 100 F.3d 995, 999 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cert. denied 520 U.S. 1160, 117 S. Ct. 1344, 137 L. Ed. 2d 502 (1997); see also State v. Robinson, 138 Wash. 2d 753, 982 P.2d 590, 599 (1999). Likewise, in some cases, denial of a defendant’s right to testify may be devastating to the defense. However, under such circumstances, a reviewing court will simply conclude that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that reversal may be required in some cases is no reason to eschew the harmless error doctrine entirely when the error involved is clearly of a trial, rather than a structural nature. Cf. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 312, 111 S. Ct. at 1266.” Momon, 18 S.W.3d at 166. Turning to whether in fact any error in the instant case was harmless, it is well settled that for harmless error to apply when the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated, the error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Averhart, 311 Ill. App. 3d 492, 505-06 (1999). Relying on People v. Smith, 38 Ill. 2d 13 (1967), the majority suggests that there is only one situation in which an error will be found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: if the error did not contribute to the defendant’s conviction. However, in a case decided 14 years later, our supreme court clarified that there are at least two other situations in which an error will be found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) if overwhelming evidence supported the defendant’s conviction; or (2) if the evidence limited was cumulative or corroborative of other evidence properly presented to the trier of fact. See People v. Wilkerson, 87 Ill. 2d 151, 157 (1981); see also Averhart, 311 Ill. App. 3d at 506 (explaining that the supreme court has set forth three different grounds to find that an error was harmless). Here, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the defendant’s testimony would have been only cumulative to the testimony of her husband and son. The essence of the State’s case against the defendant was that she had instigated a physical altercation with a DCFS caseworker. The State called the DCFS caseworker to testify to this effect. In her defense, the defendant’s husband and son both testified that the DCFS caseworker, not the defendant, instigated the altercation. In her motion for a new trial, the defendant did not explain how her testimony would have differed from that of her husband or son. Furthermore, at the hearing on her posttrial motion, she did not testify as to how her testimony would have differed from that of her husband or son. Because the record does not reveal that the defendant would have added any testimony that was significantly different from her husband’s and son’s, the defendant’s testimony would have been merely cumulative. As such, any error that deprived the defendant of her right to testify would have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and would not have entitled her to any relief. See Wilkerson, 87 Ill. 2d at 157; see also People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 92 (2001) (error in the exclusion of testimony is harmless where the excluded evidence is merely cumulative of the other evidence presented). Additionally, because any error was harmless, the defendant was not prejudiced by the alleged error, and her counsel cannot be found to have been ineffective for allegedly interfering with her right to testify. See People v. Smith, 160 Ill. App. 3d 89, 98 (1987) (error that constituted harmless error and did not prejudice defendant did not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel). In reaching a contrary result, the majority explains that “[i]n the present case, defendant was the only person who was in a position to fully express her mental state and to directly rebut the testimony of Ms. Zimmer regarding defendant’s interaction with Ms. Zimmer in defendant’s home.” 365 Ill. App. 3d at 408. This is not an accurate presentation of the facts. Both the defendant’s husband and son witnessed the altercation and gave testimony directly rebutting the testimony of the DCFS caseworker. To the extent that the defendant’s husband and son were unable to “fully express [the defendant’s] mental state,” this is something that the jury could have easily inferred from the husband’s and son’s testimony. See People v. Foster, 168 Ill. 2d 465, 484 (1995) (jury can infer intent from character of the defendant’s acts and circumstances surrounding commission of the offense, and the defendant is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of her acts). The majority further states that “[c]ertainly, the denial of defendant’s opportunity to present testimony that only she was capable of presenting cannot be deemed to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” 365 Ill. App. 3d at 408-09. As noted above, there is no evidence in the record that the defendant’s testimony would have been any different from her husband’s or son’s. The majority also claims that the denial of the defendant’s right to testify on her own behalf cannot be considered harmless, “because the two defense witnesses who did testify were seemingly impeached by their relationship with defendant and the State’s argument that their testimony was compromised by their desire to keep defendant out of trouble.” 365 Ill. App. 3d at 409. In other terms, the majority suggests that the jury considered the defendant’s husband and son biased due to their relationship to her but that it would not have viewed the defendant’s testimony with the same suspicion. This line of analysis strains credulity and defies common sense. In all criminal cases, it is reasonable for the jury, in assessing witness credibility, to conclude that a defendant who elects to testify is doing so out of the desire to keep himself or herself “out of trouble.” Indeed, it is well recognized that, even though a criminal defendant carries with him a presumption of innocence throughout trial, it does not mean that, should the defendant testify, the trier of fact must necessarily accept everything the defendant says as the truth. See People v. Morgason, 311 Ill. App. 3d 1005, 1014 (2000) (jury is free to reject a defendant’s testimony); People v. Johnston, 267 Ill. App. 3d 526, 532 (1994) (jury was free to reject the defendant’s self-serving testimony); People v. Tirado, 254 Ill. App. 3d 497, 513-14 (1993) (jury was free to reject the defendant’s denials in light of circumstances presented and all the evidence presented at trial); People v. Elston, 223 Ill. App. 3d 186, 189 (1991) (trial court was free to reject the defendant’s improbable explanations); People v. McCoy, 140 Ill. App. 3d 868, 873 (1986) (jury was free to reject any or all of the defendant’s testimony even though it was not directly contradicted by other eyewitnesses); People v. Feagans, 134 Ill. App. 3d 252, 261 (1985) (jury was free to reject the defendant’s testimony that was contradicted by a State witness); People v. McDaniel, 125 Ill. App. 3d 694, 699 (1984) (jury was free of course to reject the defendant’s testimony as to his mental state). If this were not the case, no trial of a defendant who chooses to testify and proclaims his innocence would ever result in a conviction. Because the trier of fact is free to reject the defendant’s testimony, it necessarily follows that a defendant who claims that his right to testify was violated must demonstrate how he was prejudiced by that violation. See Momon, 18 S.W.3d at 166; see also Madej, 177 Ill. 2d at 146 (determining that if defendant claims his right not to testify was violated, he must demonstrate how he was prejudiced). The mere claiming of that violation does not in itself establish that the defendant was prejudiced. See People v. Jones, 155 Ill. 2d 357, 364 (1993) (setting forth that in order for the defendant to be entitled to any relief, the defendant must prove how he was prejudiced). Here, the defendant did not indicate how her testimony would have differed from that of any of the witnesses who testified on her behalf, a point that the majority consistently ignores. The majority’s refusal to address this point undermines the entirety of its analysis that the defendant was nonetheless prejudiced. The majority’s analysis is further undermined when it shifts the burden from the defendant to the State as to determining whether she was prejudiced. In finding that the defendant is entitled to a new trial, the majority concludes “that a lack of prejudice is not established beyond a reasonable doubt.” 365 Ill. App. 3d at 410. However, it is not the State’s burden to establish “lack of prejudice.” Rather, it is incumbent upon the defendant to establish prejudice. That is a well-recognized rule of law that the majority even acknowledges earlier in its opinion. See 365 Ill. App. 3d at 408. Because in fact the record reveals that the defendant did not establish that she was prejudiced in this case, the majority’s proclamation that she is nevertheless entitled to a new trial is clearly wrong. See Jones, 155 Ill. 2d at 364. In responding to the concerns set forth in this dissent, the majority claims that my discussion of “law of other jurisdictions” in addressing the national split as to whether the violation of one’s right to testify is subject to harmless error analysis is “immaterial.” 365 Ill. App. 3d at 410. Such a response seeks to conceal the fact that the majority’s opinion is a combination of the majority and minority national positions on the issue, two positions that are inherently irreconcilable. As explained above, the majority national position is that the violation of one’s right to testify is subject to a harmless error analysis or the defendant must satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland. See Momon, 18 S.W.3d at 166-67. Without acknowledging this national majority position, the majority herein seemingly adopts that position. See 365 Ill. App. 3d at 408 (explaining that “[i]n dealing with the second part of the Strickland test, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for the defense counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the trial would have been different”). However, in resolving this appeal, the majority applies the minority national position. That position is that the violation of one’s right to testify is demonstrative of prejudice in and of itself and that the defendant is automatically entitled to relief. See Hampton, 818 So. 2d at 727. There is no other way to interpret the majority’s following statements: “Certainly, the denial of defendant’s opportunity to present testimony that only she was capable of presenting cannot be deemed to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” 365 Ill. App. 3d at 408-09. “To suggest that a trier of fact is free to reject a defendant’s testimony prior to its presentation disregards the defendant’s presumption of innocence. [Citation.] Until a jury is given the opportunity to weigh the testimony of the defendant, any conclusion drawn regarding deference is premature speculation.” 365 Ill. App. 3d at 409. Indeed, such language is comparable to the language used by those courts espousing the minority national position. Cf. Hampton, 818 So. 2d at 729 (“hold[ing] that whenever a defendant is prevented from testifying, after unequivocally expressing his desire to do so, the defendant has been denied a fundamental right and suffers detrimental prejudice”). The Illinois Supreme Court has established that it is appropriate for this court to publish a decision when that “decision establishes a new rule of law or modifies, explains or criticizes an existing rule of law.” 166 Ill. 2d R. 23(a)(1). Ostensibly, the purpose of this rule is to inform all courts and Illinois legal practitioners what rules of law will be applied in this state. The majority’s opinion herein does not serve that purpose. Rather, the majority’s opinion creates only confusion as to whether this court is adopting the majority or minority national position on the issue presented in this case. Because of the logical inconsistencies in the majority’s opinion, neither courts nor lawyers can be expected to understand whether, if one’s right to testify is violated, prejudice has to be established before the defendant is entitled to a new trial. If indeed the majority believes that the violation of one’s right to testify is not amenable to harmless error analysis, the majority should acknowledge that, even though such a position is contrary to how the majority of courts have resolved the issue and how the Illinois Supreme Court would likely resolve the issue as well. See Madej, 177 Ill. 2d at 146; Prim, 53 Ill. 2d at 67. Instead, by claiming that the defendant must establish prejudice, then refusing to apply that rule, the majority sets forth an illogical and incongruous opinion that contributes nothing meaningful to Illinois jurisprudence. Finally, I am compelled to address the majority’s recommendation that trial courts should admonish all criminal defendants regarding whether they are willingly giving up their right to testify or should personally inquire of the defendants whether they are knowingly and voluntarily relinquishing that right. The majority explains that its rationale is consistent with the rationale set forward in People v. Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d 840, 852 (1999). Inexplicably, only in response to this dissent does the majority even acknowledge that our supreme court has specifically held that “the trial court is not required to advise a defendant of his right to testify, to inquire whether [the defendant] knowingly and intelligently waived that right, or to set of record defendant’s decision on this matter.” People v. Smith, 176 Ill. 2d 217, 235 (1997). Relying on United States v. Martinez, 883 F.2d 750, 760 (9th Cir. 1989), vacated on other grounds, 928 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1991), the supreme court explained the basis for its holding: “ ‘At least seven reasons have been given for this conclusion: First, the right to testify is seen as the kind of right that must be asserted in order to be recognized. [Citation.] Second, it is important that the decision to testify be made at the time of trial and that the failure to testify not be raised as an afterthought after conviction. [Citation.] Third, by advising the defendant of his right to testify, the court could influence the defendant to waive his right not to testify, “thus threatening the exercise of the other, converse, constitutionally explicit and more fragile right.” [Citation.] Fourth, a court so advising a defendant might improperly intrude on the attorney-client relation, protected by the Sixth Amendment. [Citation.] Fifth, there is danger that the judge’s admonition would introduce error into the trial. [Citation.] Sixth, it is hard to say when the judge should appropriately advise the defendant — the judge does not know the defendant is not testifying until the defense rests, not an opportune moment to conduct a colloquy. [Citation.] Seventh, the judge should not interfere with defense strategy. [Citation.]’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Smith, 176 Ill. 2d at 235, quoting Martinez, 883 F.2d at 760. Notwithstanding the supreme court’s clear directive that the trial court is not obligated to inquire of the defendant whether he is knowingly and voluntarily relinquishing his right to testify, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, in Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 852, determined that this was something that trial courts ought to do. The Frieberg court explained that following conviction, defendants who did not testify will often later claim that they really wanted to testify but that their trial counsel prevented them from doing so. Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 852. In order to “defuse this explosive situation,” the Frieberg court “urge[d] trial courts in every criminal case” to admonish the defendant before the presentation of the defense case that he alone possesses the right to choose whether to testify. Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 852. The Frieberg court further encouraged the trial court to “inquire of the defendant before he testifies (or the defense rests without his testimony) to ensure that his decision about this matter was his alone and not coerced.” Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 852. The Frieberg court explained that the trial court’s providing this admonishment would insulate the record from postconviction attacks regarding whether the defendant had made his own decision whether to testify. Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 852. The Frieberg court further explained that if the admonishment was not given: “One [could] easily imagine a postconviction petition in which the convicted defendant alleges that his trial counsel usurped the defendant’s right to choose whether to testify and, at the hearing on the petition, trial counsel concedes that the defendant’s allegation is true. Under these circumstances, the underlying conviction is in serious jeopardy.” Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 852. The Frieberg court acknowledged that the Illinois Supreme Court in Smith had held that trial courts were not required to advise defendants about their right to testify or to inquire whether they were knowingly and voluntarily waiving that right. Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 853. The Frieberg court, however, placed greater weight on a footnote in Smith that provided that defendants were still free to bring a postconviction challenge based on the denial of the right to testify. See Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 853, citing Smith, 176 Ill. 2d at 236 n.l. Based on this footnote, the Frieberg court concluded that “[n]othing in Smith suggests that a trial court would err if, in the exercise of its sound discretion, it chose to admonish criminal defendants in the manner we now urge.” Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 853. The analysis in Frieberg is flawed. The Frieberg court ignores the seven reasons the Smith court set out as to why trial courts should not be required to admonish criminal defendants about their right to testify or to inquire if the defendants are willingly giving up that right. Specifically, the Frieberg court does not address the supreme court’s concern that, if trial courts were to admonish defendants in this regard, they would unduly influence defendants and interfere with defense counsel strategy and the attorney-client relationship. Implicit in the supreme court’s decision in Smith is the recognition that, by their very position, trial judges convey a strong sense of authority and power over criminal defendants. From such authority may emanate a strong amount of influence. Consequently, when trial judges question defendants whether their decision to testify (or not to testify) was theirs alone and not coerced, defendants may take such inquiries as questioning the wisdom of their decision. Defendants may then choose to testify (or not to testify) based on the trial court’s inquiry, going against the well-reasoned advice that was provided by defense counsel. Such a result would interfere with defense counsel strategy and, therefore, could make the defendant’s conviction more likely. In order to avoid such interference with the attorney-client relationship, trial courts should be circumspect in inquiring of defendants whether they were coerced into not testifying. Of course in some circumstances, if the defendant is sophisticated or has an extensive history with the court system, the trial court in its discretion may properly inquire of the defendant whether he is willingly giving up his right to testify so as to prevent the defendant from later raising a potentially valid challenge as to that issue in a postconviction petition. However, admonishing every defendant just to avoid this possible issue in a postconviction petition is not sufficient justification to overlook the harm that may be caused if the trial court’s admonishments or questions influence the defendant to do something that he really did not want to do. See Smith, 176 Ill. 2d at 235. Beyond failing to address the concerns enumerated in Smith as to requiring the trial court to admonish or make inquiries of the defendant, the Frieberg court’s justification in recommending that all trial courts give such admonishments and make such inquiries is also flawed. The Frieberg court explains that it is important that trial courts adopt its recommendation because not all criminal defense attorneys are familiar with the relatively new law that defendants are left with the ultimate determination of whether they testify. See Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 852. The Frieberg court also explains that if such actions are not taken, the underlying convictions may be in serious jeopardy. See Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d at 852. First, the Frieberg court’s rationale is inconsistent with the presumption in Illinois law that attorneys are competent. See People v. Holman, 164 Ill. 2d 356, 369 (1995) (when reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court is obligated to indulge in a strong presumption that the defendant’s attorney was in fact competent). Second, the fact that the defendant has the fundamental right to decide whether to testify is not a new idea but had been well settled in Illinois for at least 13 years before the Frieberg court entered its decision. See People v. Dredge, 148 Ill. App. 3d 911, 913 (1986) (explaining that it was now generally recognized that a criminal defendant’s prerogative to testify at his or her own trial is a fundamental right, which only the defendant may waive). Third, even if counsel interfered with the defendant’s right to decide whether to testify, this by no means establishes that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. Rather, as explained above, the defendant must still demonstrate how he was prejudiced, which is not an easy task. See Madej, 177 Ill. 2d at 146. Thus, the Frieberg court’s concern that the failure of a trial court to make the suggested admonishments or inquiries would put the “underlying convictions in serious jeopardy” is unwarranted. In the instant case, the majority improperly adopts the rationale of the Frieberg court in determining that trial courts should admonish defendants and inquire of them whether they really intend to give up their right to testify. Like the Frieberg court, the majority also ignores the concerns set forth by the supreme court in Smith as to the making of such admonishments and inquiries. Because the majority’s recommendation unduly interferes with the attorney-client relationship as well as intrudes upon the trial court’s discretion to refrain from making such admonishments or inquires, I believe that the majority’s recommendation is neither proper nor in the best interest of justice.