of wilson are you ready to proceed you might park building or real property comprising of a public park the statue ben defines a public park as a park or by going trail or conservation area under the jurisdiction of the state or the state or that it would open to the public usually the state can prove that a particular area is a park using the testimony of the officers weapon million with the area in this case all the state had to do w have addressed the issue of churches have always found evidence of bishop because there was more because an officer testified to the use of the church to being familiar with the area and to to know in what kind of activities were happen recently decided people be mute neither of us had briefed on this issue because the case came out last week and i'd be willing to discuss more how newton doesn't really change this newton doesn't say that the name alone is enough because even the newton then there was there were numerous other factors that led the porch to to reach its conclusion that the church that there was a check to that location including the fact that the officer testified very detailed information as to watch as to what class christian church there is no difference between any of the evidence between the two of them the only difference really is the fact that mr hanna has an additional charge and they do it gets to be additional evidence of the fact that he's  during trial was to paint her as an incredible witness and that's the real culprit so the instruction would have wanted jury that starts to testimony should be regarded with suspicion in a close case such as this that would have made the difference third on appeal has argued that hey there are other son says that have similar ages but that evidence was never before the jury the only evidence that the jury heard was the testimony of this officer that he was not never asked independent person and no testimony and nobody presented a testimony as to what the p h o lie is we also don't know what the ph apply is when it's been diluted or combined with the other chemicals used in methamphetamine so that it could have been lowered from what the defendant claims ph for a lie to the ph found by the office then you get to the fact that you have two bottles you have bottles burnt in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the morning you're not going to be out there burning bottles for no reason at all and that given the bennett says to morty he knew that his growth was going out there to dispose of something burning the defendant's test when he was we were going to the park to dispose of beth and pet him you know waste i took the dog for a walk and she was the one of the birds taking all with respect to d park i submit that just name of the park by itself in foster which side of the green the court held that the name of the church alone any other indicated that just proving the name of the church would be sufficient because of the way this tactic defined it saying that church or synagogue or other places use usually use religious purposes saying that by listing state church or synagogue simply stating the name of the church synagogue would be enough but then they went on to say that in that particular case the there was more than just the name because they had the officer that testified to his personal knowledge or better practice might be to have somebody testify yeah i know this park i go there fishing all the time that it's used for camping or whatever say that a juror in this vicinity would not know that the state park is a state park and could not infer that it was a state park from everybody's reference to it as a state or simply ridiculous emotions several on the other charge well at the time the decision was made not to seek severus it was not known he could not have been no you can use to convict you to to teach you oh would be enough under the discovered rules so you go back ok still related to that day if he chose not to testify  a decision you made maybe it was all wrong with that's not the standard i also submit that the combining two did not result in any prejudice not think the result would have been the same would have been any different the evidence of the first kills given his testimony give the testimony of his girlfriend given the circumstances under which he  would be better to send it back for a whole commission hearing under each saying hey we know what careless did but we we don't know why he did it maybe it would be better to go back to allow kelso to explain to my next question what about the fact that we didn't have an accomplice instruction as it relates i frankly the case was just as compelling against her well the jury was that that the failure to request a cause witnessed destruction is not among practice with the jury has been given the standard instruction because the jury already has all the information basically all the information it needs to weigh the credibility of that particular witness so i think that that the whatever prejudice there is for all the u which implicates him in the crime at least it at least you know one way to look at this and this is that both the girlfriend the defendant were guilty of the first and both of them  specifically the illinois supreme court specifically noted that we agree that the general instruction on witness credibility may not by itself enough to cure an errant commission of an accomplice witness instruction so it rejects the state's statement that it prove that the church is being used as a charge just because of the name church and then the state quite goes on to say so what we have left is to determine the sufficiency of the evidence and they go on to then look through the fact   the determination of this issue to a post conviction is because the record is extremely clear that counsel just simply failed to do this there was no trial strategy the all or nothing trials ready to does not fit with the facts presented in the case especially because