People v. Radford, 181 N.E.3d 78

Background

Defendant Tavarius Radford (17 at the time) was tried for murder and child endangerment after his 26‑month‑old daughter died from traumatic brain injuries; jury acquitted him of murder and involuntary manslaughter but convicted him of endangering the life or health of a child and he was sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment.
Two‑day jury selection occurred in a crowded courtroom; the trial judge limited attendance during voir dire to two family members for each side (excluding most of the public), allowed the media to film (but not jurors), and reopened the courtroom after jury selection; neither party objected at trial.
The State’s case included a videotaped police interview in which defendant admitted roughly tucking the child into a daybed and ambiguous causation; experts disagreed about timing and cause of the fatal subdural hemorrhage.
The jury was instructed under the then‑existing statute language using the term “willfully” (the statute and indictment then used “willfully” even though Illinois case law equated "willfully" with "knowingly"). Defense did not object to the instruction at trial.
The appellate court affirmed; the Illinois Supreme Court (majority) affirmed the appellate decision, rejecting second‑prong plain‑error review of the partial courtroom closure and finding the IPI instructions tracked the statute and were not erroneous; Justice Neville dissented, arguing the partial closure and instruction error required reversal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether partial exclusion of the public during voir dire violated the Sixth and First Amendment public‑trial rights	State: closure was limited, media present, many venire members remained and observed; no preserved objection so no plain error	Radford: excluding all but four spectators during the entirety of voir dire violated the public‑trial right; Waller factors not applied; seek second‑prong plain‑error relief	Majority: no clear or obvious error — the partial closure was limited, practical, and not shown to have undermined fairness; forfeiture not excused. Dissent: violates Waller, structural error requiring reversal.
Whether jury instructions using "willfully" (vs. "knowingly") misstated the required mental state for child endangerment	State: IPI instructions mirrored statutory/indictment language in effect at time of offense; Jordan equates “willfully” with “knowingly”; no plain error	Radford: omission of IPI No. 5.01B definition ("willfully = knowingly") and failure to instruct on "knowingly" misled jury on an essential mental‑state element; plain error or ineffective assistance	Majority: no clear or obvious error — instructions tracked the statute and pattern language; counsel not ineffective for failing to object. Dissent: omission was clear error and, given closely balanced evidence, amounted to plain error requiring reversal.
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to closure and instructions	State: counsel’s performance not shown deficient because instructions matched law and no prejudice proven	Radford: counsel should have objected and sought clarifying instruction; prejudice presumed under structural error theory	Majority: rejected ineffective‑assistance claim (no deficient performance or prejudice shown). Dissent: would not reach ineffective‑assistance holding because direct plain‑error relief warranted; would reverse.

Key Cases Cited

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (establishes four‑factor test for closure of criminal proceedings)
Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (voir dire is part of public‑trial right; courts must consider alternatives to closure)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. _ (addresses public‑trial violations raised later as ineffective‑assistance claims; prejudice requirement in collateral review)
Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (First Amendment presumption of openness; voir dire access)
People v. Jordan, 218 Ill. 2d 255 (Illinois: “willful” conduct construed as synonymous with “knowing”)
People v. Falaster, 173 Ill. 2d 220 (upheld limited exclusion under statutory protective provisions where media access preserved)
People v. Holveck, 141 Ill. 2d 84 (upheld limited spectator exclusion during vulnerable‑victim testimony where media allowed and record supported balancing)
People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (plain‑error doctrine; two‑prong test for forfeited errors)
United States v. Gonzalez‑Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (structural errors and automatic reversal for certain fundamental rights)