¶ 34 In his reply brief, defendant first asserts a motion to discharge would have been futile given the trial court's statements regarding speedy trial calculations and cites People v. Davis, 378 Ill.App.3d 1, 880 N.E.2d 1046 (2007). In Davis, 378 Ill.App.3d at 10, 880 N.E.2d at 1054, the reviewing court noted the waiver rule is relaxed when the objection is to the circuit court's own conduct because the objection would have fallen on deaf ears.

"The reason for relaxing the waiver rule is that the objection would have fallen on deaf ears." People v. Davis, 378 Ill. App. 3d 1, 10 (2007). For example, our supreme court relaxed the waiver rule when the trial judge refused to consider mitigating evidence at the defendant's death penalty hearing ( Davis, 185 Ill. 2d at 343) or refused to allow defense counsel to participate in formulating a response to a jury's note ( Williams, 173 Ill. 2d at 85) or spontaneously informed the venire at defendant's second death penalty hearing that a prior jury had imposed the death penalty ( People v. Woolley, 205 Ill. 2d 296, 301-02 (2002)).

In so doing, we have implicitly recognized that in some extraordinary circumstances, an objection "would' have fallen on deaf ears." People v. Davis, 378 Ill. App. 3d 1, 10 (2007); see also People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d 256, 266 (1986) (reviewing trial judge's consideration of allegedly improper factors in aggravation during sentencing and noting that "[t]o preserve any error of the court made at that time, it was not necessary for counsel to interrupt the judge and point out that he was considering wrong factors in aggravation"). Despite the similarities between the Sprinkle doctrine and plain-error analysis, we note that when the Sprinkle doctrine is appropriately applied, our substantive review is indistinguishable from a review of preserved error.

¶ 14 The Sprinkle doctrine allows a reviewing court to relax forfeiture rules where counsel has been effectively prevented from objecting because it" 'would have fallen on deaf ears.'" People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill.2d 478, 488 (2009) (quoting People v. Davis, 378 Ill.App.3d 1, 10 (2007)). The supreme court has cautioned that granting an excusal of forfeiture should be used "only under extraordinary circumstances." McLaurin, 235 Ill.2d at 488.

Here, respondent concedes that because her counsel did not object to the court's statements in making its finding, the issue has been waived. Citing People v. Davis, 378 Ill.App.3d 1 (2007), respondent initially comments that the waiver rule is relaxed where the trial judge's own conduct is at issue. Then, without more, she proceeds to assert that as no objection was made, "the standard of review is plain error."

The Sprinkle principle has since been expanded to include situations where no jury is present, but where it nevertheless appears objecting would have been futile. See People v. Davis, 378 Ill.App.3d 1, 10, 317 Ill.Dec. 54, 880 N.E.2d 1046 (2007). However, the supreme court recently stressed the importance of requiring trial counsel to raise contemporaneous objections in order to conserve time and judicial resources, and cautioned that the failure to do so “can be excused only under extraordinary circumstances, such as when a trial judge makes inappropriate remarks to a jury [citation] or relies on social commentary, rather than evidence, in sentencing a defendant to death [citation].”

While that principle is correct, reviewing any such unpreserved error "can be excused only under extraordinary circumstances" and where an objection to the trial court's conduct" 'would have fallen on deaf ears.'" People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill.2d 478, 487-88 (2009) (quoting People v. Davis, 378 Ill.App.3d 1, 20 (2007)). Examples of "extraordinary circumstances" to relax the forfeiture rule include the court's inappropriate remarks to a jury and the court considering evidence outside the record.

Id. (quoting People v. Davis, 378 Ill.App.3d 1, 10-11 (2007)). A defendant's failure to either object at trial or raise the issue in a posttrial motion results in forfeiture.

Defendant nevertheless argues that the supreme court, in People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill.2d 478 (2009), recognized that Sprinkle's holding has been applied in "some extraordinary circumstances" when an objection" 'would have fallen on deaf ears.'" McLaurin, 235 Ill.2d at 487-88 (quoting People v. Davis, 378 Ill.App.3d 1, 10 (2007)). However, defendant disregards that the court in McLaurin refused to apply Sprinkle and stressed that counsel has an obligation to object and properly preserve those objections for review. McLaurin, 235 Ill.2d at 488-89.

Given all that transpired," 'defendant's decision not to testify must be viewed as [trial] strategy with which he agreed.'" People v. Davis, 378 Ill.App.3d 1, 14 (2007) (quoting People v. Smith, 176 Ill.2d 217, 235-36 (1997)).