intentionally participated in the actions leading up to the death of marcus robinson unfortunately because of the highly prejudicial and inflammatory gang evidence that was used and otherwise lack of credible evidence putting  old fourteen years old another witness was called simply to testify defeat drawings in the bathroom of his high school and that the game in that expert who testified additionally testifying not be here talking to you about this in hamilton for instance the court there found that just the testimony of the expert was overkill it just didn't rise to the level of prejudice here we have two witnesses that were called and that becomes more of the insane and then an active gang member the record was not clear that this if it is problems in prison were directly related to this case only that they were gang related and it involved a serious news thirteen member which is arguably completely unrelated to his testimony and in this case and moreover just on the specific incidents to which william made police statements can testify if there are major and material differences in those one statement people wearing bandanas on their face best uncorroborated and contradicted by the other two witnesses to the shooting both of whom said nothing was covering the face of the heads of either person and one statement he threw a brick at him two statements he threw a brick at the car that's not another one of his statements that's a material fact in this case and there are some statements there was possibly a third person in the back of the car he did not think that at trial  testimony highly incredible what's the difference between presenting a moment to a jury and letting the jury sort of know who says what level does it have to rise to before we find it to be so on remarkable that the conviction inflammatory and prejudicial again testimony alone the other prejudice as we raise our brief the issue of the dying declaration and also been effective assistance of counsel both of those would be additional prejudices and here where the only  don't believe that it was reasonable and still doing that was reasonable based on a high level of prejudice the game testimony the dying declaration  kids richard richard was believed to be a latin king there is evidence in the record that went completely on refuted that ricky did not attend the same high school as the victim so dying declaration and we know the truck council trying to keep the dying declaration out there's no bail ability for cross examinations of course he would want to but once it came in that in richard shot me can be explained away there is no cross examination in the world that can and under in the bell the solving another layer of prejudice and the coach trial motion certainly the trial court did have the opportunity to it that time reconsider the whole point of post trial motions but we believe that it was absolutely an abuse of discretion in  those things at the end of the trial the trial judge was should have been able to see the otherwise lack of evidence presented the emphasis on inflammatory and somewhat irrelevant game testimony in the dying a reasonable decision it's the state's burden to prove each and every element of a crime and here they failed to prove the mental state there's no evidence that ricky intended for this crime to happen taylor from the supreme court tells us explicitly simply being at a crime and then driving someone away from it is not enough to show intent to participate here much like taber in tape where the passenger had gotten the driver  the passenger demanded that the driver stop the car he got out the fire shots this is green court found that that was not enough to show that the driver intended to be part of the shooting here the car stopped after it was hit by a brick it was a spontaneous action the driver got out and shot for the passenger a guy out in fire the girl and the state in its presentation argue that knowing that the gun was there seeing the gun was it not to make the the three eyewitnesses definitively said that nobody had their face covered by a bandana when you patrick testified that he knew that that meant a shooting was going to go on but that testimony of the bandanna was directly  his young son at the home of his son's mother and wisconsin and i see it when i go to her was you know arrested at his father's home there was no close affiliation there was no evidence whatsoever that isaac was in a gang which would cut against what you know ricky assuming again that he is the one in the car would have no love for these reasons we do feel that the state failed to meet its burden in showing accountability your understanding of the question if you want to question would you would you tribal councils theory is that dependency is simply wasn't there he wasn't the driver don't know how much car got there but he wasn't there or if he did the defendant was the driver point did not have any idea what was about to happen honestly i would that's the state's theory of law saying that it was mis identification and he wasn't there at trial counsel appeared to insinuate that he simply wasn't there that the actual theory was what he actually produced  realizing as i prepared for this that i did what the fourth district has recently warned against and conflated the two rules come to believe in fighting intention and accountability intent cases which is tailored which also states again to us and this is looking at the underlying crime being a spontaneous act of the principle which was unforeseeable to the drivers in that case preconceived plan here just fine and started the incident by promoting or facilitating the altercation with the right with gang members when he originally drove by patrick and rob principle it's that it's the commission of a crime and any of that flow from that crime you're accountable for it so it's not necessarily the intention to shoot them but the intent to commit a initial throwing down of the gang symbols for and i think the testimony range from five to twenty minutes that you find the people again you slow down your vehicle you allow your passenger to get out who's carrying a rifle and allow them to shoot that you remain at the scene until the shooter returns to the car and then you speed away so people submit that it ends with showing time there was no evidence that passionate was under and pressure to identify a person one way or the other he voluntarily came forward and identified the defendant as the driver the recantation came up under suspicious circumstances where patrick was picked up on the street by somebody he claimed was a vice lord from chicago drew him to defense counsel's office and at that point the person who picked him up i mean with him  money so they were able to the fact that they were it's under suspicious circumstances and that there was clear out of it that throughout this piece patrick had been match the bullet but the vehicle had been where the gun was fired and then you had two witnesses put isaac at the same defense counsel is now president with these facts theory this is this is it it was a strategy to change he said a lot of time in the trash trying to get that gang evidence out and here he not only was trying to move the motive this was a personal vendetta retaliation for the damage to his vehicle i want to talk about this gang testimony is just what you know a little bit overkill to bring four people in to talk about gang it may be prejudicial the people who assert that if not necessarily highly prejudicial and here it is falling outside of both montgomery and at the evidence that is given injury proceedings under the court act and the adjudication themselves and here you have neither that in bringing out that admission you can't the people could not come out and presenting present saying the defendant told me he was in a gang highly we have a recent supreme court case that cautions us very strongly about using any kind of juvenile adjudication i think this is for curious the c exceptions when you're doing a statement against interest you need to collaborate in circumstances to clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement that i think that's what i was trying to work more than just did council in an opening statement saying he was a member of a gang improving the people's case to show them going to are it is the understanding of just respecting rival gangs the people who are the people i understand your hono concern about the juvenile detention where there was additional evidence being made but under the abuse of discretion standard the judge did consider what was being allowed  and limited it to what was rolled into what was relevant and the case that you're looking at the defendant's involvement was what it meant for him to be a member case i i have looked up some factors in that and obviously it's not in the record before your honor's but there was a case when i say to us about a principle being found not guilty a not guilty principle however here we still think that the state failed to show the necessary mental state which is a specific intent crime here to prove him accountable to a principle you groups with each other there was no way for william patrick to be telling the truth in each of his place statements and during his trial testimony we know from smith that when the eye witness is regularly rebutted the testimony is no