People v. Hollahan, 181 N.E.3d 691

Joseph Hollahan tried for aggravated DWAI; first trial ended in mistrial after an unredacted traffic-stop video played beyond admissible portions.
At the second trial a redacted video was admitted and played; after closing and instructions the jury retired to deliberate and then requested to view the video again.
The court lacked equipment to play the video in the deliberation room, brought the jurors back to the courtroom, and replayed the video in the presence of the judge, parties, defense counsel (who did not object), and two alternate jurors; everyone was admonished not to speak to the jurors.
The jury returned to deliberate after the replay and convicted Hollahan less than an hour later.
The appellate court (majority) found the in-court replay in the presence of non-jurors was structural/plain error and reversed; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review and reversed the appellate court, affirming the circuit court conviction.
The Supreme Court held (1) no deliberations occurred while the jury watched the video in the courtroom, (2) no communication or prejudice was shown, and (3) even if error occurred defendant failed to meet the plain-error prejudice burden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether replaying admitted video in the courtroom, in the presence of judge, parties, counsel, and alternate jurors after deliberations began, was reversible error.	State: Trial court acted within discretion; no prejudice shown; replay permitted if no communication and the court controls procedure.	Hollahan: Presence of non-jurors during post-submission viewing intrudes on deliberations, chills jurors, and is presumptively prejudicial—structural error.	Court: No error. Deliberations were suspended during the replay, no communication occurred, and under Olano defendant failed to show prejudice required for plain-error reversal.

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error framework; nonjuror presence requires showing of prejudice; prejudice not presumed)
People v. Williams, 97 Ill. 2d 252 (1983) (trial court has discretion whether evidentiary items go to jury room; reversal only for abuse of discretion)
People v. Hudson, 157 Ill. 2d 401 (1993) (sending exhibits to jury room rests within trial court discretion)
People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81 (1998) (trial court may grant or deny jury requests to review evidence)
People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (2007) (two-prong plain-error standard)
People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (2010) (restating plain-error test and application)
People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (2005) (federal Olano plain-error analysis aligns with Illinois Rule 615)
People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 (2016) (remedial application of plain-error doctrine is discretionary)