case the st one is whether there is a rule for thirty one dollars b error in the evidence was closely parents the nd is whether defense counsel was ineffective or injecting the issue of race into the proceedings and also for failing to request certain jury instructions and i've also raised two sub issues related to sentencing and before i start i would briefly note that the state has conceded then if this court were to grant jason no other relief it should in a minimum hearing on the merits of the motion to reconsider having said that the st issue i'd like to focus on in the one that i believe is most commonly is the question of whether jason's trial attorney was constitutionally in effect  but there has been an increase in awareness throughout the united states that there is a pervasive problem with racism in the united states criminal justice system and you want to supreme court has issued a formal statement recognizing that racism is a problem in the criminal justice system and that's what our motion is about and i'd just like to briefly paraphrase from the supreme court's statement on that there's no longer any substantial argument as to whether or not racism exists there's also no longer any substantial argument as to whether racism undermines a fair and equitable administration of justice in the state of illinois so of course racism exists of course people of color are continually confronted with racial injustices and courts like this one have the opportunity to set things right and i certainly hope that this happens in this case what defense council did in his closing arguments was prejudicial by definition to jason the upshot of counsel's comments was that he was personally frightened of black men it was rational to be scared of black men and jason was the stereotypical scary black man now i don't have any reason to believe that the things that counsel said were intensely malicious but the comments were offensive and they were improper nonetheless now when we address a now did he not also the defense counsel an injured race and when he was talking about his client's behavior  partially explain why jason did what he did and part of those fears may have been tied in with race i certainly do think that's something that council was trying to get across and again i don't think what counts it was doing here was necessarily licious i think it was horribly misguided but i don't think it was malicious and you know i do think yes to answer your question that in part you may have been trying to explain why whites are some made this was in her dues and there was no evidence whatsoever trial on this issue well i certainly think that's part of the problem from my point of view it's not the main thrust of the honor that that would be one way to frame this issue yes it would because otherwise we've got a situation that we have a white victim or a white perpetrator of black victim a black perpetrator and if they're both in court there's an observation being made by a jury x finder of people's respective race right yeah sometimes without ever being introduced as evidence i mean it's a it's a problem it's reported it's real problem but is it not where are we on the line of analysis that the fence attorney can quote go off the rails and start talking about things that were never put into evidence well certainly if you were one or two to grant relief on that basis i would certainly have no objection that wasn't the thrust of the argument that i made but if this court would like to move in that direction  grant jason relief on that basis we we certainly have no objection to that ok that was my question but now what are you doing with this i mean what what you're framing and where in sync with what are you saying this is reversible because of the actions of the fence attorney and why it's reversible because it was ineffective assistance of counsel it was not reasonable it was an reasonable formants by counsel it was clearly prejudicial to jason  jury did what it did but the things the council said regarding race could very easily have backfired this was more than a situation in which council simply mention jason's race and then he asked for the jury to give him a fair chance the counselor articulated some ugly prejudices about african american men namely that they're scary and it's rational to be scared of them goes back to my questions and boy you know we have pictures of the  and if we accept as true that there is an implicit bias then we have to talk about the level of prejudice prejudice again your honor is raises under a different frame is coming from it makes it makes sense to me that jason is race per se was was not an issue in this case until the defense made it an issue in other words no problem or issue or complaint with that is unfair you were saying and i think you know it early that it would be permissible for the defense attorney to say the i certainly i i think a in ocular statement of the sort that you're on a suggesting would be just fine would not be prejudicial  acceptable but but i would wonder why again if race and particularly right now race is incendiary and even something like that could backfire so is it would what would that be good practice i don't i don't know i'm not sure i would go that route if i were a trial counsel well i guess what i'm trying to point out however we want to structure this all right if there's no other questions about this issue i will i will point out i've also raised an issue that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ask for some serious ructions i'm going to go ahead and simply stand on those question and answer process and this issue of invited error also doesn't work the defense in no way shape or form acquiesced to the rule for thirty one b area there was no affirmative acquiescence and i would simply reiterate some of the things that i said in my brief regarding the issue of closely balanced evidence both of these stories have some plus both of these stories are somewhat confusing questions i'd like to ask for this court to reverse cases convictions are the reasons that we've articulated in our priest if the court declines to do that we asked the court to at a minimum except the states concession a new hearing on the motion to reconsider this so let's use any of the questions your honor thank you very much argue to the people agree that trial judge by a limited role for thirty one b there are principles where the judge failed as all the jurors whether they understood the defendant admittedly forfeited this issue understood and accepted those principles of course compliance with four hundred and thirty one dollars b is mandatory so there's clear air but in glass for the supreme court held that for thirty one dollars b violation may be subject to harmless  was there but here defendant not only acquiesced to the trial judge's hording when questioning to hear about their principles but defense counsel failed to ask the percents prospect of jurors whether have understood and accepted principles when she questioned each of the minutes easily could have asked all the jurors whether they understood and accepted the four principles ensured that judges omission of the word understand so i touch on it briefly but initially we know that the jury was instructed to closing arguments should be confined to the evidence or inference is drawn from the evidence closing arguments or not it has been a jury should disregard any argument based on the evidence and the jury found defendant not guilty of three counts including the most serious charge there for counsel's racial statements did not prejudiced offended or change the outcome of the trial and  defense counsel's comments require a new trial but marcia while the prosecutor who's consistent theme throughout the entire trial this make inflammatory and derogatory racial remarks about what he termed quote the black community or necessarily effective to me was reading this closing argument several times it was counsel injecting his own personal biases into the case and trying somehow to say defendant ran because he was in a white community and felt he was threatened i think there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that it gives a lot of talked about if you was in cell chicago in a black neighborhood he would get out of there as soon as possible that's defense counsel counsel argued to find a theft you got to try and permanently deprived and defended did not permanently deprive as he drove down i think the seven doing the speed limit and if it was not a base of did not resist arrest counsel argued the d to require those instructions but neither of those instructions require the jury to be instructed on the intent to private is only one of three options i had serious been given the instruction it could have found him guilty of a class one or class two felony for stealing a semi thus a failure to give an instruction on the intent to permanently deprive did not change the outcome of the trial it was good trial strategy for these reasons that's the end of that art of the story this court shouldn't gazey any further analysis as far as the issue of injecting race into the proceedings whether or not this court adopts the legal framework that justice  right and doing to thumbs up on mr austin what was presenting his argument and i don't think you meant do that in a real court i would not your honor i erred in doing that my apologies to the court in my apologies