2021 IL 124832
Ill.2021Background
- Defendant Hayze L. Schoonover was charged with four counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child; the victim (M.L.) was a minor who testified first at trial.
- Before M.L.’s testimony the trial court, invoking 725 ILCS 5/115-11, ordered the courtroom cleared except for media and persons the court deemed to have a direct interest; the court expressly allowed M.L.’s grandmother and indicated willingness to allow other family members.
- The court briefly asked who the remaining spectators were but the record contains no identification of those persons or a formal, on-the-record inquiry into each person’s direct interest; no contemporaneous objection to the 115-11 closure was made.
- The courtroom was reopened after M.L.’s testimony; M.L. later was recalled and testified again in open court.
- A jury convicted Schoonover on three counts; he was sentenced to an aggregate 85 years. The appellate court reversed, finding second-prong plain error for failing to inquire whether excluded spectators had a direct interest; the State appealed.
- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding the trial court did not violate section 115-11 or the Sixth Amendment because (1) the statute permits the court to exclude persons who, in the court’s opinion, lack a direct interest without requiring express on-the-record findings as to each spectator, and (2) the media remained in the courtroom so the public-trial right was preserved.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Schoonover's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court violated 725 ILCS 5/115-11 by excluding spectators without making express, on-the-record findings that each excluded person lacked a direct interest | Section 115-11 allows temporary exclusion of persons who, in the court’s opinion, lack a direct interest; no statute-mandated formulaic on-the-record finding is required | Statute requires the court to make an express informed determination about each excluded spectator’s direct interest; failure to do so violates the statute | Court held no statutory violation: the statute entrusts the court to form an opinion; express on-the-record findings as to each person are not required and cannot be presumed absent any contrary evidence of interested parties being excluded |
| Whether the temporary exclusion violated Schoonover’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial | Because the media (the public’s surrogate) remained, the temporary removal of spectators during the minor’s testimony did not deprive Schoonover of a public trial; Waller-level findings were unnecessary when media present under 115-11 | The closure deprived Schoonover of a public trial; absence of an adequate inquiry into excluded spectators’ interests was structural error | Court held no constitutional violation: allowing the media preserved the public-trial right and the temporary, limited exclusion did not trigger Waller’s heightened requirements |
| Whether forfeiture/plain-error review permits reversal despite no contemporaneous objection | The issue was forfeited but not plain error; no clear or obvious statutory or constitutional error occurred to satisfy either plain-error prong | Invoked plain-error review: the failure to inquire was second-prong plain error affecting trial fairness and the integrity of the process | Court found forfeiture and declined to excuse it under plain error because there was no clear or obvious statutory or constitutional error |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Falaster, 173 Ill. 2d 220 (Ill. 1996) (upholding temporary exclusion under section 115-11 where excluded persons were not immediate family or otherwise directly interested)
- People v. Holveck, 141 Ill. 2d 84 (Ill. 1990) (media presence can preserve the public-trial right when portions of proceedings are closed to spectators)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (closure of criminal proceedings to the public requires an overriding interest, narrow tailoring, consideration of alternatives, and adequate findings)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (trial courts must take reasonable measures to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials)