announced that they will be issuing people the birch on friday which does address their rule for thirty would be a year or so i just wanted to get your others notice of that that will be coming down on friday so today particularly in light of the state in light of the state's concession of  elements of the if it is those factors existed here in this case there was no physical evidence presented to corroborate him as testimony car did not confess to these crimes and there was no immediate outcry to me by m f the jury had to find  friend of the murphys who was living in the living room at the time said she got up in the night so she would also in car sped heard an adult male snoring at the time she also added that also in the living room with her that night was one of the two teenagers either in math or her older sister katie there was no dispute that katie was sleeping in one of the bedrooms that night so the inference for the jury presented was that this was in messaging there and she was not with karr in the semi she claimed there were also closely balance some suspicious circumstances surrounding that statement in math st accused her of all this this whole case came about because him everyone in the journal that she was going out with karr that he was the best b f ever and they had done stuff and slept naked and he gave her an orgasm but she was still a virgin it at the time that meth made this journal entry it had recently come to late that her older sister katie had been involved in sexual activity and in fact that occurred at stephanie murphy's house the very same weekend that  sister or maybe just knowing all this was going on and she was kind of fantasizing about what that might feel like but then once it was bracha late two months katie brother driven to the attention of invest parents and police became involved in meth may have felt there was no going back with something the jury could consider in fact it is interesting her she did not stick to what she's said in her journal that might she then disgraced kind of a one hundred and eighty cars not her boyfriend he someone who came in and committed all of these attacks upon her surprisingly and she was scared of course there was other crimes evidence presented by the state substantial other crimes evidence again we're looking at was this case closely balanced the defense presented evidence to counter that testimony and even if the jury believed that evidence is still this impasse allegation still hinged on her credibility and there are still issues for the jury to resolve including the defense witnesses saying she wasn't with car at the time and i would also note that while the other crime servants there were substantial text messaging social media all of these things to corroborate that degree of evidence was not present with respect to him as allegations against car so the case will still close on that issue said he also instructs that when a case is closely of itself requires a new trial without speculating as to help me affected the evidence but when you do start to consider that it only shows why this it was particularly prejudicial in this case here's a statements are not traditionally allowed at a criminal it's there's no consequences so when this can come in and it can come into the statute here there are protections that have to accompany the hearsay evidence one of those is eleven dollars which tells the jury they get to decide how much weight to give to the prior statements and it's up and they should do so by considering the age of maturity level of the complaining and the nature of the circumstances in which they were made in this case this was so important this instruction as i have noted one of the things the jury had to all specifically was how to consider any misstatements into that in the state also rely heavily on the prior statements to corroborate her testimony in trial it was important for the jury to know how they got to the went to decide how much weight to get to that evidence and in doing entire video being played just the portion where the officer stated over and over no matter how much heard tonight that they believed him after her sister they knew karr had done this to be clear the issue is not whether this portion of the tape constitute opinion testimony or whether it was admissible as past or present to opinion testimony whether or not it was opinion testimony it had to be relit and that was the issue research trial the objection that raise a trial the same objection raising here to that and on the probative value side this portion was not all that relevant car did not say anything or changes demeanor in response to the officers insistence that he was guilty the state is not disputing that an appeal at trial they also did not mention this evidence at all during closing showing that this was not really relevant there's a huge hour and a half video that they didn't mention his statement once in closing and again it was not present in the cars st right on the other hand th there was no similar testimony given in this case to explain that rumors that you're instructed on how to consider the officer statements to cart so they were free to consider that for their substantive value they could say use jurors believe cursed guilty no matter how much he tried to deny it given this closely balanced case given the pivotal nature of finding him after rebel this could have in fact been something that tipped the scales in the state's favor if they resulting the staff in saying maybe we have doubts about this maybe we're not sure the very easy thing was these officers who investigated this case who have years of experience they believe in math they don't believe carsten mail so why should we so for that reason there was it that year should contribute to the supreme court has knows it's going to issue an opinion on friday that will determine the question of combining the four their principles so i see no need to  that's where the defendant goes astray clear and obvious error just means there is an error but that as this court notes and the other issues in this brief the state argued strongly that there was no air at all but given the illinois supreme court's decision people versus sergeant that said even if it's not requested which it was not in this case the failure to give it is clear and obvious there doesn't mean it's plain are we still have to go to whether the evidence was closely balanced and i'm going to focus here briefly on because ever since it came out  for defendants are almost consistently saying that if the evidence is close that it has to go back but that's that's not what sebi says said he said and i'm quoting here was a defendant has shown so that's the st thing he has to do is that the evidence was so closely balanced not just closely bound but so closely balance that error alone severely threatened to tip the scales of justice that's an exact quote from seppi said we really didn't say anything closeness of sufficient evidence and finally i would note that of this court's corey again quoting directly from from set these involves an assessment of the evidence on the elements of the charge defense along with the evidence regarding the witnesses credibility now in fact in seventy the facts  entirely very much he said she said the defendant and his two friends says one thing the arresting officer and two other officers said another thing the the witness and there needed the prosecution of the defense accounts of the events for fanciful that's that's you have to look at the facts and savvy to understand that location now in this case we're not dealing with he said she said mandy testified at trial exactly what happened and her story was consistent it was since defendant seems t so much about the missed trial that occurred earlier a mistrial that occurred because an eleven to one to convict one person was not convinced  so it's hardly means that there was great evidence of his innocence last time but but nonetheless in her st trial she testified very very similar the witnesses that she told the story she told her grandmother she told the grandmother in front of her mother her father and her sister she later told her father in detail that she did she testified under what has to be terribly traumatic circumstances in front of total strangers and forensic interviews that he did it she wrote of her journal that he did  things that twelve year old should not know like she was still a virgin because i'm too hard for his eight inches all of this is substantive evidence because our legislature believes that these outcry young children are worthy of belief and i would note that in this particular situation in this situation where we're dealing with as closely balanced that this court can consider the hears say outcry statements on the prosecution side of the scale as it determines whether the evidence was closely bound for purposes of playing or review that skip over his marco and people versus moon there was even more evidence in addition to to manny's testimony in addition to the substantive evidence that was admitted to other people there was the other subset of evidence in the federal after he did it to her while he was out on bail sexually assaulted another child and was grooming yet another and against all of this is defendant's testimony and yes they did truck to wake him up on the morning and that the defendant and the victim came into the house at the completely opposite from what she said the nd time around so she is certainly not a credible witness karen another the one that said she she saw basically she saw shapes it was dark she saw shapes she decided the shape was too big to be  girl or too small to be the defendant she's heard sounds but even she said that in her interview with lost a place that she did not know where at least one of the girls was sleeping when she woke up and she admitted that her memory of the night was not good and finally stephanie's mother tammy said she hadn't a clue if it was possible for the defendant to be alone in the truck with the victim and they even contradicted each other stephanie said the victim was shy and clingy but her mother said that she was loud and hung all over the over the i've gone through all of this evidence and i'm out of time but it because all of these issues deal with whether the evidence was close the evidence was not and under the proper reading of seventy seven dollars so close that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the fed that's that's the sebi rule not just close but so close that the alone one severely threaten to tip the scales of justice as is that review of the of the evidence here is the evidence was not closed that resolve all of the issues in this case for a lot of what i said in opening that this case was closely balanced i would note that in savvy the defense witnesses were impeached as well as were the state witnesses and the court said they were impeachment on either side but neither side was i don't believe these were fanciful i think it confusing that neither side was impossible and that's what they were looking to in that case here as well yes stephanie murphy was impeached from her prior testimony so too was one of the state witnesses katie testified at trial that it kate that imette was supposed to sleep with her that night but when she went to sleep katie enough was not there she was just gone when kat look at the next morning but the defense impeached her with her prior statements you change your mind or the forensic interviewer she had said something different she said then that katie was with karen i'm sorry imette was asleep with her that night but she was not there when she woke up  and again by that point the theory was that she was already gotten in the car with in the truck with car to missouri to drop off a load so there were impeachments on both sides and imagist goes to show even further why this was a closely balance case plus there was some differences at trial stephanie murphy acknowledged her prior testimony and explained it katie just said she never remembered giving that testimony also stephanie was corroborated by karen so  actually if you look at her testimony and redirect she said very specifically my memory of that summer was not very good but i remember this night because i was interviewed about it closely in time to these events so all with all of that said  do believe this case was closely balanced it hinged on the jury virtue he said she said and karr's test he did not testify at trial but he did deny he statements in his interrogation which was admitted as substantive evidence and there were competing witnesses and both sides on every element of the if it so for those reasons we submit this case was close and as i stated in opening the two areas we touched on here were so prejudicial that they could have to the scales against car and for that reason we want us for him t