murder was not being murdered by motivated and there is no physical evidence linking dixon to the crime no confession and not one on involved unbiased civilian witness the  there presents itself as if this was a direct appeal and in fact he did have a direct appeal and we address very similar issue on direct appeal and why is this issue still a viable one for witnesses that were allowed to testify about being added and at trial those witnesses your honour's where the state said from the very beginning that if any of the civilian witnesses and namely the crowd witnesses took the stand and recanted their testimony they wanted to be able to enter into evidence impeachments information about threatening again threats that were made all right once we get to that and second of all detective knows was an expert witness he came under the badge of god he came behind the shield and was able to say to the jury i've worked in this area for twenty years i'm going to gather he's four or five witnesses who were the last thing credible given their impeachments and given other things other crimes are brought out against them and say to the jury that is my opinion my expert opinion that joshua jackson is a member of the traveling vice lords i know the whole hierarchy of the gang i know the way the king works i know what his job and position is within the game and in fact detected m limit his testimony to things that he knew about the traveling vice lords he talked about the gangster disciples he talks about the back and kings he talks about the ambrose the true forrest the different fact factions of the travelling by slurs all of this information that did not pertain to nicolay said those murder came before the jury the judge himself said great when when the when defense counsels you know raised again their objection to detective munoz's expert testimony and said that games are permeating this trial the trial judge himself he said the testimony is as it is at this point i use their common sense when they're deciding cases and this jury had already heard from as you said it was full witnesses actually who recant ok and they'd be heard a ton of threat that the traveling vice lords howled it to many of these individuals that took the stand and testified and then better than that that that really draws the question where's the prejudice based on detective munoz's testimony alone if again testimony came out repeatedly by way of the other witnesses and those issues were addressed on direct  the reasons why they may have been afraid with a legit leaders of the traveling vice lords in the court room this issue is practically in over the head the jury knew and you know a gang member and then they presented the detective photographs of the of the defendants body on his back of a and allegedly game tattoo and had him examine it and point out to the are well aware of this but i find it important in that statement that i was quoting from the judge that he said as the evidence is at it as it is at this point and it's going to have to be addressed sometime later and again and i know that you could say that could go to the recantation witness's testimony which you did address on direct appeal but again when it the judge was responding to defense counsel's motion for a new trial where she specifically raised the improper and this of it delegating it testimony that expert testimony that was presented specifically which i think makes it distinct from the recant in witnesses here again says that these allegations do in fact set forth the grounds that mr dixon named val argue on appeal and properly so and that goes directly to joshua jackson's claim and his pro se post conviction petition that meetings that he had with his prior witness you know these witnesses at the station house he was able to talk about the investigation a sec owes murder but it was not necessary because the jury the jury using their common sense would have been able to tie it already to the information brought in by ernest hatchings and moon munson thrown rust that detective munoz in his professional opinion a problem with that i think it just serves to continue to restore the state's evidence of dirtying up the murder and the people that were involved in this crime with with the game as as i said you know in my opening three almost everyone that was part of that scene that night including the young buchanan children who i guess were also present some words hides the game that control that building items that that should be addressed on appeal because they had they had basis in the record and they certainly have been preserved and i thought you're going to go from there to say  the issue you're addressing or you're racing down the post conviction petition is not frivolous in a feed sort of way because the trial judge himself recognize that the question of the expert witness and his testimony of whether it should have gone for the jury seemed to be an arguable yana really i definitely maintaining that the fines and fees that were levied against mr jackson should not have been levied because his claims are not frivolous and the reason why i didn't focus on that necessarily is because i hate if i'm going to take fifteen minutes of your time diag the facts they definitely better not be frivolous and also as we both know fines and fees at issue is presently before the illinois supreme court but this is dixon's first petition stage because they would necessarily mean that it lacks arguable basis either law or fact i mean that is the standard and if you dismiss from the first stage that would certainly be the case but yet there are these say i gree with your honor i believe that it is you know it does had to ensure you support and the problem is that we allow all defendants to have the statutory right to file you know  post conviction petition and we also agree that absent the defendants and petitioners for filing this i don't necessarily have any legal background that might be illiterate and m i'm trying in their best way to put forth the claims to this court and if you have the statutory right to file the petition each time you file the first one it can automatically you know have fines and fee on direct appeal by it in light of the witnesses the testimony or the can related testimony that was addressed by the witnesses because they have no that they had they didn't address the expert they didn't test next as an expert only detective munoz did and so to that extent i'm not sure that this is a subset of the king related issue they're certainly might fall under gangs but they're sort of side by side as opposed a expert that somehow that changes the game that he's a gang expert but it certainly does there is a difference is now i mean that when we're talking about what is presented to the jury the sort of  of added weight to such a witness testifying before the jury this is an expert this is an individual that you can rely on his testimony as opposed to one who's a lay witness his work is a was a lead investigator case and he talked to two of the witnesses and actually this is important because defendants are going to sort of hinges on well it was sufficient that the witnesses testified to the extreme case again timid age and i'm not talking about the evidence of this event i'm talking about what happened in this case this is extreme ever there were four i witnesses to this case then last day the other three were all subjected to such intensity imitation threats that they may change their testimony and in addition to those three there was a fourth when there was a fourth witness and a curse witness named schreiber for what she was actually a good friend of the defendant in this case her test morning was changed that was after a bunch of girls came together very much supported by gang leaders and we know and we know that they were supported by calling gang leaders because  when you when you lies the issue you didn't you didn't differentiate you didn't spell out this or that you talked about the basic standard for the relevance of of game and that's what you listed right here of page five fifty  s i mean he won't he can't get through his lawyer and to the extent that the lawyer decided what issues he was going to raise so long as they were preserved at trial you know that that that characterization of it please just just look at the p c petition because you can look at it you can disagree with nubile my recollection is defend it was pretty well aware of your opinion and he took pains to actually point out that  information evidence relating to his expertise his qualifications everything went to  qualifications as an expert or that they're saying that's what he did raise and p c petition but the issue is not raised in the present here with that i submit that this issue is fully for except  d review by an attorney to amend it or to clarify a board to get further support i just is all you really need and that just make  a related issue that maybe isn't hasn't fallen terribly within the complaint that he put in his petition but it's close enough that we allow it to go forward once he has a lawyer and he doesn't not specifically raise it then then it becomes a different issue for i'm not sure that we should we should rely on clear four for just because he did put it in the legal terms that a lawyer my eyes are still you're saying but that type of argument usually goes to necessarily follow that we have to of course the whole one hundred dollars that your office is claiming for filing the the the appeal and then fifty dollars for granting oral argument so that we have to add in fact one hundred fifty to what judge ford and this sort of characterization made about how he sort of washing his hands he thinks there's a real issue here because once that washes hands of it well that's that's a characterization of it that bed that i submitted is not really borne out by the you know threatening bottles that are or are cracking on the on the hood of the car with the with the golf club she was she was one of those girls her point was that there was a claim problem because it was inconsistent because that witness had actually cooperated with our stipulated to his qualifications you think in some way your argument here i don't believe so your honor i may be missing exactly what you're saying but i i don't i believe that detect was an expert and i'm gaining evidence but i don't think is that it needed to be brought before this jury i think that what needed to be proper for this jury was and we are not challenging his investigation question of the witnesses that had just testified and that was all brought in and that's that's case separate from his his expert testimony which i'm page ninety seven of the record you see that that's when he he is sworn in as a witness and at that the flavor of the testimony changes it goes away from the conversations that he had with the witnesses during interrogation at the police station which included the threats that were made to them by b i buy other members of the traveling basically it's you know if you were given a retrial do you think the result would be any  i can only see how did we ever get a conviction on any case ever your honor i agree if if mr dixon does receive a new trial and these witnesses come back and if they continue to recant then i believe their their handwritten statements or their videotape or their grand jury testimony or not perhaps our three m which i do think is a little bit of filing but we'll come back in touch assured that they had previously this intimidation in tunisia things is definitely a problem and it has to be handled in some way but it is incumbent upon the court to limit the information that is given to the jury given the fact that we all  knowledge that this is you know a very inflammatory subject especially after a long summer in chicago this to occur in july july of two thousand and three so does that answer your question no i'm just wondering if you reach out maybe you'll get more sixty five well i guess that would depend upon the number and number of things like his but occurred while he has been incarcerated