People v. Gore, 110 N.E.3d 231

Defendant Charles Gore was tried for attempted murder, home invasion, and aggravated domestic battery for stabbing his ex-partner; jury convicted him of home invasion and aggravated domestic battery but acquitted him of attempted murder.
At jury deliberations the jury asked questions; the court brought the jury into the courtroom, excluded the public, answered a question by reading an instruction, and replayed portions of a witness’s audio testimony in the presence of judge, parties, and jury.
After conviction and before sentencing, Gore filed a pro se motion alleging his trial counsel was ineffective and sought new counsel or self-representation.
The circuit court held a preliminary inquiry (called a "Franks hearing") into the ineffective-assistance claims, during which the State extensively argued against Gore’s allegations; the court denied relief, finding counsel’s performance adequate.
On appeal Gore challenged (1) the courtroom closure during the court’s responses to the jury’s intradeliberational questions as violating the public-trial right, and (2) the propriety of the Krankel preliminary inquiry given the State’s adversarial participation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Sixth Amendment/Ill. Const. public-trial right applies to a court’s answering of jury intradeliberational questions and thus forbids exclusion of the public	The People argued closing the courtroom during jury questions was permissible and that public-trial protections do not extend to intradeliberational judge–jury communications	Gore argued closure violated his right to a public trial when the court excluded the public while answering jury questions and replaying testimony	Court held the public-trial right does not apply to the phase where the court answers intradeliberational jury questions; no public-trial violation was found
Whether the preliminary Krankel inquiry was properly conducted given the State’s participation	The People contended its participation was de minimis and any error was harmless because the judge relied on independent observations	Gore argued the State played an adversarial role during the preliminary inquiry, undermining the neutral, nonadversarial Krankel process and the objective record for review	Court held the State actively participated adversarially, rendering the Krankel inquiry improper; vacated the denial of Gore’s ineffective-assistance claims and remanded for a new preliminary inquiry before a different judge without State adversarial participation

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (sets multi-factor test and procedures required before closing courtroom to public)
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (Sixth Amendment public-trial right applies to voir dire)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (public access principles and community-value justifications for openness)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (jury deliberations must remain private; considerations about influence and secrecy)
People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984) (procedure requiring preliminary inquiry into pro se ineffective-assistance claims)
People v. Brooks, 187 Ill. 2d 91 (1999) (discusses judge–jury communications post-retirement; language referenced regarding communications in open court)