People v. Jackson, 211 N.E.3d 414

On Dec. 20, 2013, Brandon Jackson was tried for first‑degree murder and attempted armed robbery after a victim was shot during an attempted robbery; jury found him guilty and sentenced to 60 years (murder with firearm enhancement) plus 5 years consecutive.
The jury returned signed guilty verdict forms for all 12 jurors in open court; defense counsel requested the jury be polled.
The trial court asked 11 of 12 jurors, individually, “Was this then and is this now your verdict?” Each answered “Yes,” but the court inadvertently dismissed the jury without polling the twelfth juror.
Defense counsel made no contemporaneous objection and did not raise the polling error in the posttrial motion; defendant raised it for the first time on appeal.
The appellate court excused forfeiture under Illinois’s second‑prong plain error rule and reversed for a new trial; the Illinois Supreme Court granted leave and reversed the appellate court, holding the polling error was trial (harmless‑error) not structural error and therefore not reviewable under the second prong.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jackson)	Held
Whether polling only 11 of 12 jurors was clear/obvious error	Conceded it was clear/obvious error but forfeited and not excused	Conceded clear/obvious error and urged excusal under plain error	Yes — the incomplete poll was a clear/obvious error, but it was forfeited by failure to object
Whether the incomplete poll is structural error excusing forfeiture under the second prong of plain error	Argued polling error is a trial error subject to harmless‑error analysis and not structural	Argued jury polling protects unanimous verdicts and the error is structural (second‑prong plain error)	No — polling error is a trial error amenable to harmless‑error review, not structural; forfeiture not excused; convictions affirmed (case remanded to address sentencing claims)

Moon v. People, 2022 IL 125959 (explaining narrow scope of second‑prong plain error and treating certain errors as structural under state law)
Herron v. People, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (plain error rule; burden to excuse forfeiture)
Glasper v. People, 234 Ill. 2d 173 (failure to comply with Rule 431(b) is trial error, not necessarily structural)
Thompson v. People, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (distinguishing trial errors from structural error; Rule 431(b) analysis)
Kellogg v. People, 77 Ill. 2d 524 (polling that reveals juror ambivalence can cast doubt on unanimity)
McDonald v. People, 168 Ill. 2d 420 (party must object during polling or forfeits challenge)
Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses)
Fulminante v. Arizona, 499 U.S. 279 (distinguishing structural errors from trial errors; harmless‑error framework)
Martinez‑Salazar v. United States, 528 U.S. 304 (harmless‑error analysis and other safeguards can preserve trial fairness)