either there are seven substantive issues in the briefs i tend to focus my argument this morning on two issues in particular both of which relate to actions the trial judge took that change the question presented to sydney johnson's jury those are the o instructing the jury on said second degree murder over the defense objection having decided for himself that finney had killed danny and leaving the jury to decide only whether said he was justified in doing so and that question was totally arguments that the judge allowed on the motion in limine and once the judge ruled that that cannot be admitted it couldn't come in but defense counsel's motion in limine they specifically named three family members in particular to whom  that it was within hours of the stabbing that this confession was made and again those three specific names of family members and then said that there were additional family members and friends who had heard this confession as well i was said information given to that counsel continue in fact counsel is not required to continue to press an issue after the trial judge has made a ruling he's only required to ask the judge to bring forth whatever he has if the trial judge shuts down that request he's not required to continue to to basically beat his head against a wall so firestone you correctly if the trial court refuses to allow evidence then the responsibility obligation is i'm not sure that there's a requirement at all to have an offer of proof defense counsel's representations to the court were tantamount to an offer an offer of proof already within the motion and once the judge said no i don't find it humorous factors or matt not coming in let's move on trial counsel  step which they were not allowed to convey to consider for any substantive reason only for impeachment and yet that's correct i didn't and then how can you say then that that that first factor has been that that first element d consistent with his representations in that pretrial motion so there's no you so if you're doing is you're asking just to provide a new a new rule rule is that instead of using it offer pro did the jury was very confused based on the instructions that they received in this case not what i'm talking about the first one had the instructions to test them based on the testimony and based on the further it was the personal from the record that the jury disregarded the trial judge at the close of evidence and it shifts into into the other matter that the close of evidence decided on his own motion to instruct sidney jury on second degree murder and self defense over the defense objection that was believe they were confused maybe they did disregard because they were so confused about those that the instructions that they received they were confuse having heard consistently throughout the case the defense building this case that sydney did not do it that he physically could not have been responsible for that stabbing that there's something else going on here they could not have been confused perhaps they didn't up rejecting that testimony but that's not a reason that would support allowing the judge to keep out exculpatory information that that that if that another individual had had the physical evidence the physical placement of those wounds on danny's and tell us body one of the few things that all the witnesses agree on is that that sidney fought with his right hand they are everybody else also agrees that any center you is part of but there were some there were some scratches and say there were some scratches here the front part of his body wounds though were the result of treatments from n t s that cut into his chest to believe in who they would love but to some extent yes but in fact the judge in this case step then at the end of the evidence and decided took a key credibility determination out of the jury's hands he decided at the close of evidence that he believed the state witnesses and that he did not believe the defense witnesses and decided for himself that danny or that i'm sorry said he had stabbed danny and decided to instruct the jury on second degree murder and self defense over the defense objection this  with the defense that was presented at odds with the evidence that was presented and as i said before could only have confused sydney's jury to have heard a defense consistent with he didn't do it he couldn't have done it and then be instructed well you know second degree murder instructions shift the plea they suggest to the jury they demonstrate to the jury but the defendant has acknowledged that he is now responsible for that  but that he was justified in doing so that's inconsistent with the plea of not guilty that's inconsistent with his right to present a complete defense and it's inconsistent with the evidence presented and argued to that jury so they receive all these instructions placing a burden to present evidence of mitigation on sydney that he never took on himself that he did not present and that was inconsistent with everything he presented all that all the evidence all the arguments there was s chamber if you're talking about corroborated by other evidence it's insufficient evidence to iraq his statement then first of all all confessions are self incriminating and against the declare its interest and spontaneous there was absolutely no proof or anything that was presented by this defense attorney i know the defendant says that he was somehow to surreal serious testimony is just contradicting the other testimony that was presented contradicting itself it was contradicting don's testimony james testimony m testimony and rookie's testimony itself and whether there is any slight slight corroboration there has to be some other evidence the case that was cited by the defendant it does not say a threshold people versus tony it says there has to be some other evidence of crabbe aeration in the trial found that there was just simply insufficient evidence by this person who was outside playing with his children talking with his wife and not paying attention and not even able to possibly identify anyone out on the street even in the trial he could not say that defendant was even out on the street that day that is simply insufficient threat that is insufficient corroboration again i mean this is megan after the stabbing saw the knife saat defendant running down the street with a interviewed her never took any notes during the interview she said that the fellow it was getting dark that there were a black man in the photos and she did not want to misidentify she could not identify but she was certainly able to identify defendant at the lineup immediately after he was arrested as did megan and she had known defendant sense he was nine years old so he was certainly able to identify defendant as the stay over act the scene of the persuade the score to say that it was impossible for sidney johnson to see ever it was not impossible and the forensic evidence clearly supports their with regard to the  and the statement that the illinois supreme court made prior to even talking or discussing that argument is in fact we feel very pertinent in this case and that because there was no admission there was no change in his plea just as in people versus raining when they stated rocksmith medina had no relation in regards to a trial court having the authority the discretion it's a separate issue a trial court has the authority to give the suit was filed the instruction versus the defendant's right to have that instruction tendered they are different and the illinois supreme court has spoken that the  indeed has the right to do that regardless of defendant's arguments here that he was somehow prevented from opera scenting his plea of not guilty not so at all the jury had to find him guilty of first has the right on slight evidence to give this instruction and again that is a separate issue the trial court's discretion is separate from whether the defendant has decided to plead guilty or plead self defense that was presented in a trial in chambers that if if there is any question if the evidence is close that the judge should err on the side of allowing that evidence to be heard because the jury will resolve any problems any credibility issues regarding it also as to the corr case in which the defendant has not already put forth a defense of self defense sydney did not put forth a defense of self defense the the trial judge taking it upon himself to take the issue of whether sidney stabbed an essential you know at all he took that away from the jury when he instructed them on second degree murder given that that was a completely that those instructions were completely at odds with the defense that was advanced those instructions could only have confused the jury and caused the conviction in this