precise language in the step she says the subtle changes must be within the jurisdiction of the same court it's a recognition of the statutory venue provision now this is an interesting comment to this committee notes and it seems that the legislature still coming up with this new information is on cross examination of the medical examiner mr moody his attorney asked my colleague to come speak with you and didn't you tell us the blunt force trauma was the cause of death the medical examiner please the court again kathleen was representing mr rooney and i'd like to focus on the jury instruction issues but we'll be happy to answer questions on anything else you might have to weren't to ask i want to first point out that if  raised the issue that my colleague just addressed then there would be need to address the jury instruction issues because they only apply to the murder conviction nonetheless the issue here the main issue is that concerning this n instruction of the defendant's request said but the judge judge rejected there's two key principles that apply the first is that it only homicide case when a body is found outside of the state there is no presumption that the death of the a causing the death occurred only and the second principle is that jurisdiction in a murder case is an essential element that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt along with the other elements of the offense at least when the body is not found in illinois and this right to have the jury instructed on the theory of defense first of all the key point is that when it is a legitimate factual disputes this instruction is necessary and here the jury was not provided with the principles about state on it kind of leads to the second issue because initial instruction that the state's requested and was given to the defendant's objections in which they said they were told that it was not necessary that the find that the defendants were wholly responsible for the death if there was an interview because there's had to be a contributing factor and it causes them is not an issue with this case is that was discussed in the in the briefs because that's more typically done in a medical case this is not an intervening cause two thousand and nine people in told them that the fire was not the cause of death now created by the time trial came around he actually was going back and forth there's no carbon monoxide in the system here for he had to be dead before the  has to be history is the reason for the change when charges the city change the charges in july two thousand and nine defenders are bringing in august of two thousand and nine and the first person occasionally government just like the prosecutors police are so you've got the government just not speaking very clearly with other agents of the government and as a result of that i mean why would look at this and say that the medical examiner did say i believe you know i e never really changed my diagnosis maybe i didn't write a sword fully but i never really changed my taxes and so it's possible there was just not good communication between the medical examiner and the prosecutors in the different states and it's should badly on sure that they covered this and said take their time investigating him working with the other agencies to determine who this is joe stiction the much feared approach to the defendant this wasn't evidence that is sufficient to give the state a reasonable chance to secure a conviction you don't think you had that two thousand seven with that corner report that listed all these things that lead to death all of which one was the beating in illinois and have every case completely one hundred percent lockdown that you have an absolute certainty you're going to get in before you bring charges and that's that's not what you guys do i mean you can't do that there are some cases that are harder to prove you're making it sound as if you have to have ontological certitude of how this happened before you bring the any guidance whatsoever because they're speaking in venue when their station is clearly speaking of jurisdiction case there is no other fact that we salute to the jury they can make the conviction for life and that is why we have the trial judge consider it and in this case the trial judge said the proper thing and refused to give that