See People v. Dameron, 196 Ill. 2d 156, 164-66 (2001) (citing cases where this court concluded that a Doyle violation amounted to harmless error). Our precedent with respect to Doyle violations is significant to our instant analysis when we consider that Rule 431(b)(4) has its roots in the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Zehr, 103 Ill. 2d at 477 (stating that it is “essential” that jurors understand that a defendant’s silence cannot be held against him). We note, also, that questioning similar to that set forth in our Rule 431(b)(4) is not uniformly required in other state and federal jurisdictions. See Baker v. State, 157 Md. App. 600, 617, 853 A.2d 796, 806 (2004 p. 1999); Jones v. State, 378 So. 2d 797 (Fla. App. 1980); State v. Hayes, 364 So. 2d 923 (La. 1978) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as pointed out by the dissenting
holding that a defendant has a right to question the venire about their willingness to accept the defendants right not to testify recognizing that criminal defendants right to testify is subject to crossexamination holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify holding right to testify was federal constitutional right holding violation of right to testify could not be harmless