scene of the crime however the trial court believed that the defense expert dr karl reich conceded the presence of williams d n a and only contested whether williams is a major or minor contributor of d n a to the globes in people misunderstood there were at least three individuals d n a present in the glove recovered from the scene and the three laboratories analyzing the major profile found an act of differed in their opinions as to which will be els were present at the low dr wright also testified that a coincidental match would be possible at up to eleven lowside thus using the difference of opinion among the different laboratories as well as the presence of multiple contributors and the possibility of a in the glove stating that dr wright did have to indicate that certainly it was still the defendant who through every standard taken was one of the individuals whose d n a was on the gloves but he disputes whether or not he was a major contributor it that williams the defendant could not be excluded and then the judge use that along with worthless testimony to say that therefore those two take could not be included that's correct he did not explicitly state that however the difference between a match and fiction lowside and the inability to exclude someone as this court recognized and people be right is large there's a large difference between saying someone cannot be excluded and someone affirmatively mash it all for itself what is difference here because that's what the court i would say that the court said if it can't be excluded the certainly that means he is included and match would mean that at all thirteen lowside the major profile at illegals that precisely matched mr williams profile however in this case there was some differing opinion at the low side you thirteen  two out of thirteen lowside did not precisely match according to dr rice estimated state at missile batman how many other people would have been included in the there was not evidence as to where there was not evidence presented as to how many other so when an expert testified as to anything less than that why is that the public defender  but the problem that i see in the trials of these matters if you want to bring it back to iraq says you know there should be an objection maybe even a motion to byron expert from testifying to anything less than thirteen because other however even if this court does find that the issue is forfeited you should address it under either prong of the plane or doctrine with respect to the first prong the evidence here was closely balanced the only physical evidence in the case was  which was disputed and the only remaining testimony was that of the jailhouse informant james wortham who the trial court said it had to do with extreme caution and with respect to the and testimony given his history of convictions dating back over twenty years and his frank cooperation with federal authorities and drug stings and his acknowledgement that the state's attorney's office he believe the state flare this case we would argue that the evidence is close to balanced and moreover with respect to the second prong here the trial court's failure to recall the defense experts testimony deprived of that that testimony was just there to create reasonable doubt as to whether williams contributed to the glove yet the trial court construed that as a concession that williams d n a affirmative and then through its own conclusion well said well it's a right and cross examination had to admit that williams was one of the individuals whose d n a was on the gloves that's implicitly saying williams profile however because there were other labels mixed in with those that matched mr williams the first thirteen low sign mash was not possible and all that could be ascertained was an eleven loss a match which because the trial court misunderstood that fact which was the center of williams defense and he was deprived of his due process rights to a fair trial and unless this court as further questions we would ask that you grant mr williams a clearly unequivocally and one hundred percent that there were thirteen lowside in this case and it was in fact a match there is no question that that's what dr stuff testified to he is an expert the judge believed him the judge said he believed and the judge would have been entitled to stop right there and just say i believe he's arrested i could credibility ruling between writer and stuff he essentially did europe where we're well look at what the judge said he went through the evidence and he started by saying into specifically what happened on cross examination and i've got a lengthy diatribe on cross examination here but with the judge said this however regardless of all dr wright did through laborious cross examination have to indicate that certainly it was still the defendant to every standard taken was one of the individuals whose d n a was on the club let's go back to what happened to cross examination the state's attorney took dr right through thirteen of all thirteen on cross examination if you've been up all thirteen that the defendant's d n a was there so you're saying that right and strong testified to the same it also depends you know it also depends on the numbers number we've got one in one hundred ninety six quite brilliant chance that there's a coincidental match here but is there a possibility sure but the possibility is so infinitesimal that they're  possibilities that defendant has to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt we're not dealing with possibilities well unfortunately under you are i don't think so well you're not going to find somebody at the expert who says this is the defendant so is it as long as i'm alive and sitting here there's going to be no defendant that's going to be found guilty unless they're found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and they will i consider possibilities well i want to know judge you consider possibilities well that's what you're doing when you do d n a you know that's not true i disagree with that one hundred percent well when it when our expert says it's a one in one hundred ninety six quadrillion chance that someone i'm using the word possibility because the best use the word possibility of the points that i'm asked but needless to say is running this file thirteen is enough and there were thirteen here so we only have that question well i you know in reading the cross examination you that's you know that's another story but anywhere you're around he was to on page five twenty three going through page five thirty three the state's attorney just bad didn't testify he was the major contributor by the evidence i have furthermore in this case it certainly does support dr stuff fine he believed doctors about it if he didn't believe doctors that we couldn't  he said this is again from five ninety five five ninety seven the defense refuted dr stop through dr rice however regardless of all dr wright did through the forest cross examination and it is in the without question we will do it but is it true that dr staff agreed with the bodies conclusion that there was at least three contributors to the known sample from the glove yeah no question both both people agree with that that that's not uncommon in these first of all there was a thirteen loci match so there was nothing to object to you asked why they didn't object you know as what i'm saying is this whenever an expert goes less than thirteen there should be an objection where they use the word match ok but that didn't happen there because it obvious that by the time closing arguments came around the public defender was pretty aware that he was on shaky ground because he even conceded your well ok when the women's d n a may possibly be on there so it's limited to a very short lest that list is contained in both plaster and thousand this is not one of those cases the defense argument that we don't have to object because it's an error of the trap or it was rejected also in towns and what thompson said there is essentially if there's nothing in the record indicate that the judge would have not listened to you or that the judge was going to bite your head off if you made it injection and there's nothing here to say that this judge wasn't going to listen to an objection this judge was was fair  the fact that at the fifteen there was an additional those i both side twelve i'm sorry a legal illegal number twelve which did not match mr williams which the illinois state police included in its analysis of what the major profile  nine eleven thus if both he correctly analyzed the profile that float that locus would not match mr williams d n a at that locus so the state's cross examine in this case did not that you know that was a match at all thirteen you know simply because wright said something different i don't see how that eliminates  testimony on the judge's reliance upon dr stout's test it doesn't eliminate it but it's important to remember that in this case he was not challenging to see the evidence rather he's arguing a due process elation arguing that he should have a or fact that correctly understands the defense evidence presented does the fact that there was a state expert here does not affect the fact that the trial court misunderstood the crux of the do not deal with the second front of player they deal with structurally or which is a fundamentally different concept and the second prong and this court has applied the second front of clean air even in those cases not on the state supposed exhaustive li portion of the record that the state cites was defense counsel's alternative argument defense counsel said that the state presented evidence that crandall could not be excluded as the major contributor to the d n a your honor however there was a major profile at some of the locations which makes that potential profile or makes it a partial profile identifier as to who was in fact the major contributor that was the primary argument that this partial profile was insufficient to create a d n a match defense counsel only proceeded to say that even if you find imagine this case your honor he's still not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt so it was just an alternative