Court Opinion

ID: 9782537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 18:55:58.06407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:05.302049
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McDADE, specially concurring I concur in this decision because that result is required by the supreme court’s recent decision in People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (2010). I write separately to emphasize to defense counsel that they rely on the language of Rule 431(b) (Ill. S. Ct. R. 431(b) (eff. May 1, 2007)) to the peril of their clients. In the 2007 amendment to Rule 431(b), the supreme court eliminated language requiring that the defendant ask the court to instruct or question jurors on the four fundamental trial principles included in the rule. In that amendment, the court appeared to place the burden of fully instructing the jury about the Zehr principles wholly on the trial court judges. Now with its decision in Thompson, the supreme court, despite both the evolution of Rule 431(b) and its plain language, effectively puts the burden once again on defendant, through his counsel, to ask the court to carry out its responsibility or to object if it does not do so fully. If the defendant fails to do either of those things, he or she is obligated to prove prejudice attributable to that specific error on the part of the trial judge. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 614. I find it virtually impossible to envision a likely situation in which, in the absence of appropriate questioning of the jurors by the trial court or an outright posttrial declaration of a violation by a juror, a defendant could possibly prove the requisite prejudice. The supreme court continues to declare that its rules are not mere suggestions but are mandatory and, while they are not law, they do have the force of law. In re Denzel W., 237 Ill. 2d 285 (2010). Doing the Rule 431(b) voir dire as specified in the rule is not rocket science. Nonetheless, the court requires the defendant to meet a seemingly impossible standard of proof to redress the trial court’s failure to follow the rule. Following Thompson, defense attorneys and prosecutors who are committed to maintaining the level playing field required for a properly functioning adversarial criminal justice system must be vigilant in ensuring that potential jurors are adequately—by which I mean in a manner actually compliant with the procedures the supreme court has set out in Rule 431(b)—instructed on the fundamental principles articulated and protected in People v. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d 472 (1984).