morning everyone please and we'll call the first case the people the state of illinois mr connor's all right before we proceed each of you will have approximately fifteen minutes to present your argument and from me at all counsel may say some time or rebuttal all right case in the motion for a new trial was there an objection that the state used or violate the motion in limine by basically telling not being overwhelming so just well when you say it was unsubstantiated you're talking about what there was there was no corroboration of the allegation well now let's talk about  here in our appeal would we in your opinion write this in light of the jefferson case that it permit the introduction of be taking a polygraph  and that the standard of review testimony and so i understand your point because here are the question answer i mean jefferson who said this is fair game i don't see the results well they didn't see the results here but where exactly did they go  point doesn't jefferson say well if you claims that he was torture coerced then we can give a recount of everything to took place when he was taken in custody and we can also be count that we took a in that in jefferson the defendant was charged with attempted murder of her seven week old child and aggravated battery and subsequently found guilty but in that case the issue or rather the testimony was that she was scheduled to take a polygraph i've never it was never get it and the courts said that you met case in the threats meet her work at the child was going to die and if she just you know took the test or gave a statement she'd be able to see her child those were her claims in that case the court allowed the introduction of the fact that the test was schedule there was no result there so the court wasn't really concerned with whether or not the state had go on overboard and they actually you know put in the trial judge said you can't go into the results and counsel is arguing that the state went into the results and that the arguments about the truth polygraph so whatever it says about him that he's he's considering the idea that he's lying he does have a truthful story to tell and it will be caught if he takes a polygraph that's entirely different from conveying  a polygraph to him as with detective testified he did and then the defendant having a reaction and then agreeing to confess i mean that jefferson didn't actually get into what the reliability of the polygraph it was just the defendant's reluctance to take it here we're talking about the very determined that you could go into his agreement to take a polygraph and that the defendant agreed to take the polygraph that the first time that they could schedule it was not until august tenth because there was some suggestion about him being in custody forty eight hours and that the defendant took a polygraph examination and that afterwards was the does not negate the fact that it was essential for the truth understand that the entire period of corroboration could not stand in writing supreme's caution because it presented it inappropriate a statement made to a person shortly after the event of a sexual assault is admissible and in this case there were certainly multiple recount teams up this but the question here is did the state go beyond the ruling actually was that actually preserved i'm not sure and were the arguments focusing upon the results by this reference to truth detector truth detector truth detector which let's face it people refer to the polygraph as a lie detector often not necessarily polygraph so the question is did the state resolves what's the point of explaining that the the fact that a polygraph test was given can be told to the jury in every single case where they're claiming a an involuntary and that you don't go yeah and yet you don't go beyond what the result was in that kind of fiction no it's not a fiction because there is  inference i'm just saying i think this is kind of a fiction it's been you gauge to me and i'll i'll ask opposing counsel but the court definitely said you couldn't go into the results they said that in jefferson they said that before when there was a suggestion made twenty years earlier in this i forget the names bremer has made us trip where the just as pointed out that there could be any asian where the taking of the test would be relevant if there paragraph examination can come in he subjected to cross examination in all fit during the cross examination the defense is a question is asked in the end he said i told you not to ride because you're not going santoli very clearly to the jury he conveyed the results of the polygraph examination defendant's head and shoulders dropped he tells him it's now time to tell the truth well did you arguing your motion for a new trial and i know you were at the trial did you a broader policy perspective in looking just beyond this case and the clear is a hearing picked up on this world as a criminal defendant to do under these procedures once the jury is  here that it is plain as opposed to calling she after some an outlier which was based upon the previous case and i think it was forget the name of it and all federal present evidence that a polygraph was it minister i don't i don't think it's an outlier i don't think it's out of line the question is did the state in this case go beyond what is allowed currently the most certainly did they most certainly do in their campaign you know their argument at least in two different instances of direct evidence there was an absolute inference that this defendant failed the polygraph and of course we're i don't know where you're going to come up with this claim that that's unsubstantiated and that there has to be something more she makes an outcry she makes it that evening she makes to her mother she makes it to her father she makes it to the a dvocate so and all of those statements are admissible and were admitted in this case pursuant to statute and longstanding case law but now i mean i don't think that this case proceeds any other way or that there's some magical testimony that was required or nay i just responded that yes when gauging plane or analysis as this court must do on this issue at least in part you need you need to contemplate the strength of the as attorney defending them and they're difficult for prosecutors to prove but that doesn't mean at the peril of the make a special exception for a particular type of case and i don't completely understand your argument that the polygraph was the result was clearly interpreter who was a cook county sheriff kenyan conveyed the results and said say it was an accident you can go home the reason for corrosion under the constitution however it is a slight couper's and because the evidence was in this case that mr statements in the evidence in this case he's pretty consistent all the way through before this one accidental touching so i think the court considers this case versus previous cases there was no claim of coercion and finally suggested that good that these are the worst three times that the prosecutor used the term truth detector and in all the trials that i tried i have never heard the term truth detector ever used in a closing argument we're he a he said she said if defense counsel smith challenged credibility of the state's witness that means we're going to blur the comments on the right detector the now being a lie detector would come in every single case and that's not i think a spurt in visuals i don't think that's what the supreme court has ever