argument is that he wanted he wanted the issue considered absolutely he wanted the issue of trial courts error in ins in failing to instruct the jury about the informant testimony he wanted to raise it wasn't raised on direct to the question prejudiced you have to demonstrate to reason probability of reasonable likelihood of success some people correct yes i do and you would agree the standard is still abuse of discretion is there is no user discretion and is this court has recognized and why would it have been in use of discretion for the trial court to deny the structure it wasn't a case of discretion for the trial court to deny any informing instruction in this case because by failing to issue that instruction at the same time giving the point one seven commenting on the testimony of disparaging the testimony of sabrina goldman the trial for effectively put his thumb on the scale of justice to my client's detriment  defense witness is flag with the scarlet letter of the accomplice instruction in order to maintain fairness in the instructions that information instruction was necessary the instruction that was given because she is indicted will for the criminal conduct of mr walker in this case mr rios was not inevitable for delivery of a controlled substance or conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance in fact in the state correctly pointed out  kind of cure because he just participating in a criminal investigation with the police so the combo's instruction did not apply to felix rios and in fact the state was able to capitalize on this rough jury had all of that evidence and your own i don't dispute that the task is for the jury to evaluate that informant's credibility but i think the jury should be made aware of the law that controls that and should guide was illinois law bless it the issuance of special instructions on informant testimony people versus grown right people versus carrots on page six of earth life so it was upheld counsel if you had done the legal research would have found it is audio as well and it captures so large chunks of these interactions but critically what it does not capture is the nature of what was actually exchanged between the parties critically the video evidence does not completely did after these alleged transactions he would go into his house cover the camera of littering the view of the camera while the camera for a time before meeting up with the undercover officer  to hand him over the drugs so there are video of this weaves big questions and big blind spots for the jury to answer and in answering that question but should have been given the information struct aspects and see one seventy one two and five he states in regard to other charges in number six in regard to the chain of custody the commented on the defendant's rambling nature of this petition so we will i think this is rambling and i think this comes squarely understocked in in stockton this court to did say you saying you know the parties are free to argue that back goes to either or both the two individuals and obviously you know the jury reading them instruction when it doesn't specify you know it just says the person's involved you know in that the offense so you know they would not be inclined to think that you know as a matter of law transactions where real was set up by this with goldman in the defendant so rule it's although his defense was that they drugs a couple important things to remember her i'm in a pure phrase kuhlmann at thirteen and that's judicial scrutiny of counts performance must be highly deferential it's all too tempting for defendant to second guess counsel distant after an adverse decision to easy for the coup or examining counsel's defense after its proven unsuccessful to conclude a particular act or admission was  the recent decision that you know threw a huge into that first issue but the defendant actually got relief on the second issue so it's very hard to argue that when the defense the instruction was given to benefit the state but at the same time the state objected to it forming a structure that would have basically replaced the traditional protection that the propositions provide for the final i think this is type of evidence and there is no special instruction offered police officer testimony that said three seventeen they don't recommend separate expert witness at three eighteen so  that the general credibility of witnesses instruction which is i p i one point two is used and then you know the parties argue and in this case very vigorously regarding trial the ted detective there somewhat cooperated by saying johnson came back with cocaine but he hadn't searched or during the war she left and in that case the defense counsel strategy was focused order for there to be a fair playing field you need to give neither instruction and just go with one point zero two and let the jury figure out and use common sense as the trust court would have it that an accomplice is has credibility problems in