People v. McKinley, 74 N.E.3d 482

Defendant James McKinley was tried for aggravated DUI based primarily on a patrol dash-cam video and testimony from two state troopers.
Troopers testified McKinley smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot/glassy eyes, admitted two shots of vodka, failed HGN, walk‑and‑turn, and one‑leg‑stand tests, and refused a breath test.
During deliberations the jury requested to view the videotape; the trial court brought the jury into the courtroom and replayed the video in the presence of a substitute judge, the prosecutor, defense counsel, defendant, and a bailiff.
Defense made no contemporaneous objection, and did not raise the issue in a posttrial motion; the jury found McKinley guilty and he was sentenced to 54 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal McKinley argued that showing the video in open court chilled jury deliberations and prejudiced him; the appellate majority affirmed, finding no prejudice and declining plain‑error relief.
One justice specially concurred (would find error but no plain error), and one justice dissented (would find presumptive/structural prejudice and reverse).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether showing the video in the courtroom in the presence of the judge, parties, and counsel during deliberations prejudiced defendant by chilling jurors and violated the secrecy of deliberations	The People argued the trial court acted within its discretion to manage courtroom procedures and nothing in the record shows any juror was influenced; no presumption of prejudice	McKinley argued the presence of outsiders during viewing chilled deliberations and impaired jurors’ ability to examine evidence privately, requiring reversal	Court held no abuse of discretion and no demonstrated prejudice; mere presence did not warrant reversal absent proof of influence
Whether any error is reviewable despite forfeiture under the plain‑error doctrine or is structural	The People argued defendant forfeited the claim and any error was not plain or structural; evidence was overwhelming	McKinley invoked plain error (closely balanced) and argued the intrusion threatened trial fairness and integrity	Court found issue forfeited and not plain error: evidence was not closely balanced; error (if any) was not structural and did not undermine fairness

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (analyzing juror privacy, outside intrusions, and when prejudice from third‑party presence must be shown)
People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81 (Ill. 1998) (trial court has discretion to allow jurors to review evidence or transcripts)
People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (Ill. 2010) (plain‑error burden and structural error principles)
People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166 (Ill. 2010) (plain‑error first step: determine whether error occurred)
People v. Belknap, 2014 IL 117094 (Ill. 2014) (clarifying plain‑error two‑prong framework and structural‑error standard)
People v. Coleman, 358 Ill. App. 3d 1063 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (trial court’s inherent authority to manage the courtroom)