defense counsel about the question and respond to the jury prior to the verdict; (2) the Illinois Appellate Court’s determination that the trial judge did not unreasonably delay in answering the jury’s question prior to the verdict was unreasonable in light of the evidence; and (3) the Illinois Appellate Court found that the trial judge erred in not informing defense counsel of the note after the verdict but applied the wrong burden analysis, contrary to Supreme Court precedent. A. The Trial Court’s Actions Prior to the Verdict Crockett’s legal challenge focuses upon his right to a fair trial, his right to counsel, and his right to be present during all stages of trial. He cites several Supreme Court cases: Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 176, 106 S.Ct. 477, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 236-37,
holding that sixth amendment not violated when defendant makes incriminating statements after indictment to persons who are not related to the government holding that states use of informant to obtain incriminating evidence from defendant about pending charges violated defendants sixth amendment right to counsel notwithstanding that state was also investigating other charges as to which the sixth amendment right to counsel had not attached holding that the sixth amendment right of confrontation applies to all three phases of the capital trial and that the admission of  hearsay statements of codefendants in the penalty phase violated the confrontation clause holding that the sixth amendment is violated when the state obtains incriminating statements by knowingly circumventing the accuseds right to have counsel present in a confrontation between the accused and a state agent holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection