then existing that the use of the course confession is substantive evidence is never harmless here and found that the defendant in this case established prejudice it's reverse of the trial court order which denied  if their post conviction petition that decision to stay contends is in conflict with the prevailing supreme court interpretation of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution under which this claim was brought is also in conflict conflict subsequent to terminations made by this court and reviewing claims that come before it and post conviction review such as the case of people versus reginald mahaffey and the analysis that was utilized and people versus madison be adoption of the rule satisfy prejudice in the post conviction context also is in review of these claims is also frustrates the plain language of the post conviction hearing act which was that comes into the presentation of a criminal case is a classic trial that can be quantitatively assessed in light of the other evidence that is set for presented in that case it doesn't the language inform and i indicate the court would have treated  harmless error issue different if it had been physical coercion no it does not the state does not believe it would have treated it differently i believe the quoted language is especially true but the though the rule itself says the use of a course that right to not have your confession introduced at trial against you and if they did the purpose for the rule as this court found in people versus winstead which was interpreted in oregon versus states supreme court decision found that the found that they would give the the fifth amendment to the united states constitution precludes the added ins because it substantial evidence that was used by the state that was linked to the confession which brings us to and which brings us to the point was the physical that yes the physical evidence the iron that was used to burn karen byron body was found in defendant's bedroom and there was eyewitness testimony that he went up and down the stairs with the iron and while his friends were raping this woman was using it and punching  is and it's a fact of the composition of the trial record is indistinguishable from a confession obtained in violation of the constitution sixth amendment i've been seized in violation of the constitution's fourth amendment or a prosecutor's improper comment assess trial errors in light of other additives we believe because the use of a course in fashion as a matter of federal law is can and that which is what this claim was brought to wards the fifth amendment you believe that the united states supreme court's majority opinion is controlling the cost but we also believe that they own noyo post conviction hearing act in the subsequent determinations made by this court are equally authoritative and even more so and even more so limited to as to the analysis that can take place and utilizing a an assessment of the record so therefore we believe that a person that adoption that prejudice is presumed under the post conviction hearing act is not the state of the law in illinois well the application of wilson to satisfy cause and prejudice in this context in this trial record is certainly in conflict with previous decisions of this court th it looked towards overwhelming evidence to despite a twenty three patient fashion that was introduced and that case it suggested that the outcome a trial would not have been different the court in the second post conviction opinion in this case which was the previous appellate court order which the product the third post conviction court had before it right like in this case the people versus hobley because the statements themselves are denials of criminal responsibility there is two different statements that were made to the prosecutor at area two one of which was a complete denial of any involvement by stanley rice who was arrested at his house and the second was that he went up stairs and he saw his friends raping her and that he dropped a nine or this was entirely cumulative to properly admitted evidence that was set forth through the eye witnesses kind of lewis and bobby williams now it is clear from this record that the woman the victim was an alcoholic who could not make a an identification of this individual and who did not have the work that did not have that ability and make a night of identification over the various people who were raping her so the evidence that came forward throughout the trial record is really principally obtained from the two eye witnesses and when you say bobby williams he's the codefendant that's correct and does he not also allege that he was beat bobby williams i a llege is now that he was beaten subsequent to stating i will after he told them what occurred at the area too and he also testified eight months later in may one thousand nine hundred three to his account of what occurred with stanley rice going up and down the stairs using the hot iron which was correct which corroborated another eyewitness testimony and what about his kinney lewis is that the name kenneth lewis where were about his testimony is that changed now as his testimony is not  that they want to go back and have this evidence you're hearing they want to go back and have an evidence you're hearing that's where we are in the procedural context right now and so we have skipped the second stage review in the first stage of the review not my asked and that does wilson rule so that prejudice was the use of the course compassion is never subject to harmless error there is more evidence newly discovered evidence that would make it more likely than not true that the claim constitutional violation exist the difficulty in understanding the import of this rule is that ordinarily it would go to a first or second stage for an initial determination and then a an amendment in this case in a previous post conviction stated that his convictions were sufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without one mention of these statements and also at it but they statements that are now being challenged now don't you really answer my questions about the claim not raised in the initial petition so went back to the trial of the resulting conviction or sentence itself violated you process the act requires the trial court to examine the record and determine what impact the claim would have had on the rest to the trial in this case the exclusion of these statements by holding prejudice satisfied because the use of a coerce the score statements is never harmless air the decision would divest t obligation to independently assess the evidence to see whether a second stage review newly discovered evidence would have more likely than not change the result a trial that's exactly what occurred in previous proceedings so that the records of which in the opinions of which were before this third post conviction or so then their entire record in this case suggests the outcome of guilt or innocence would not have changed even assuming it proceeds to a second stage determination that is because this course reasoning people versus hobbling and decide and determine that in an earlier opinion the use of a coarse confession is subject to harmless error of you under the fifth amendment the united states constitution according to a majority  states supreme court if there is overwhelming evidence apart from the challenge statements it cannot be said that his convictions violate fundamental fairness or due process we believe that the effect of holding otherwise would be calamitous because illinois state courts would be we would not be doing that but we are what we would be doing is a bit examine the trial record to see whether overwhelming outdance apart from and excluding that and isolating that i wouldn't and see whether the overwhelming evidence or whether there is overwhelming evidence this is not overwhelming out that it's an inquiry that would be meaningless under this per se adoption of the wilson rule and the wilson rule again was predicated in premised solely on united states supreme court authority and  versus arkansas and that in the authorities that were proceeding it so we don't believe that would violate due process the convictions themselves do not violate due process and that's not to suggest or inferring in any way that the state condone jury in this case though it is essential to examine the statements that were made because here we do not have a confession of criminal guilt that was utilized by that that was utilized by a state principly and insane and showing petitioners judicial review of what the confession is if the confession is an admission of guilt certainly that's the most primary probative piece of evidence that comes before a jury certainly it is and it would probably not necessarily hypothetical eber survive your process review but we need to quantitatively assess what those statements work to see whether they contribute to the convictions that were obtained whether they are merely cumulative or whether there is sufficient evidence apart from those convictions on which these convictions i mean uscis of sufficient evidence apart from the statements upon which these convictions stand the direct appellate court has already determined that there is sufficient evidence apart from these convictions upon apart from the statements i'm sorry upon which these convictions stand and for these reasons and for the reasons of judicial discretion the state in this state and that that the use of course confession is would it would be just as impactful on an individual who  can be just as impactful misses part of chief justice rehnquist's decision as a is a close claim of course a confession that can be impeached during the course of the criminal trial therefore is difficult to differentiate and for these reasons we would so in fact of these proceedings more than half of the evidence offered at mr rice's trial had something to do with not just his statements implicating himself but about the circumstances of this confession the state explored the fact that mr wright's challenge and wife i think absolutely there should be again they're asking this court to find a real consequence but officers acting under the state of illinois tortured suspects there is absolutely a difference between the physical torture o and psychological coercion this court's historical repugnance for what these men bred for dragging men to the basement for flogging them electrocuting them let's be very clear what happened here this was police brutality at its worst there is absolutely a difference and a consequence to the states the state for sixty years has to truth behind the notion as the leader and saying we will not tolerate torture in the state we will not tolerate torture they're asking for this court well i'm going to ask you this in terms of their just to look at this procedurally they're arguing this should go bare for the second phase in the opportunity to amend if we were to do that are you prejudiced somehow by i believe that when it goes back to the trial court mr rice is counter appointed can and then the petition include other claims or other evidence again that would be for ensuring i'm not sure that the state has a right to second stage proceedings has a right they don't have a right to amend the petition the court here the state through days before trial a man who was mentioned by no one as been anywhere near or in the house that night bobby williams who was again found four years before the trial who testifies entirely inconsistent with bobby williams and quite frankly you've established prejudice why because the law in the morning is the use of a physical torture a confession is never harmless and this court has not wavered from that finding and they offer you know alternative explanation for why this court in this state should all of a sudden illinois should continue to reaffirm its own rule we have a very bad bill right from the eighty's about john burgess torture practices and in this case illuminates this is twenty nine years later and reaffirming this course while i certainly hope i think that the state said that these types of errors in time without the evidence you're hearing the earlier the alleged error was not harmless or should we could we as the last all turn to son back flesh out the petition monty doesn't have to be addressed here this is a prejudiced and under the post conviction hearing at present prejudice prong is so in fact of the proceedings mr wright's can certainly on this record meet the burden that his confession so when fact of the proceedings traditional prejudice to advance it for a hearing and a lot of these arguments and a lot of these issues will be fleshed out there this is this is not a direct appeals time but we're right now we're just asking for a hearing on these claims in order to flush out some of these  wilson should be maintained they've given you no reason other than just saying well it's of no consequence for the man was was taken downstairs and carried and beaten and some of these men who were electrocuted in waterboarding it's of no consequence to that's quite that's just a regular error that happens constitution under our illinois to process protections and they provide no reason why this question not continue to uphold its president and continue to hold that the admission of a physically tortured confession can never be harmless error but certainly gun justice cobra i'd like to just barely speak to word some of the comments that were raised by study rice's counsel first where there was a citation about how the prosecutor use transcript page sixteen eighty eight is all he did according to his testimony was deny any part of this thing the id the evidence about who was becoming seen going in the house stove over a three hour period up and down his stairways to his bedroom with his friends well the woman was burned and weight repeatedly there was that the the idea that his that the the other evidence was somehow inconsequential is not the case the other evidence is exactly what the direct appellate court looked towards and finding that there was sufficient evidence of guilt this whole the coercion claim which of course which of course is a point and that the conduct of the police officers in this in this case or it is reference cannot be condoned anywhere but the product of that which the supreme court  note newly discovered evidence and to whether properly recants fifty eight pages of this trial testimony where he speaks towards and he testifies that stanley rice was one up in to through his bed to his bedroom and rape this woman assisted his friends and raping them and then burned seventy percent of the spot of her body and how it was that her clothes were next to stanley rice's bat and that's not a correct statement about the special state attorney's report the pages thirty three thirty four about the special state's attorney's report including allegations that they could prove john byrne and peter dignan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and this case or the other cases is not and pages thirty three of thirty four what what what was brought before the special state's attorney in two thousand before two thousand and six was allegations of abuse and the state's attorney said it could not prove those beyond a reasonable doubt it was report suggested that in three instances it could prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to not mention these these individuals however that is not to say that there was not powerful admins that would advance the constitutional claim that was brought in previous proceedings there o's zero s p reports that were tasked with a previous post conviction petition sandy rice has had consistent judicial review of these claims and has had review since one nine hundred ninety one of his claims he was appoint counsel in two thousand and one prior to the disposition of his second post conviction petition and the court the trial court asked on the record i've had all this out and i have thick evidence to support your allegations and explain but you maintain that you did not confess how would this why cobley how would this have changed the result of a retrial to that jury how can this be quantitatively assessed and there's overwhelming evidence of guilt that was those in the trial record on and an appeal under direct appeal that suggest that you were determined guilty without reference legally without reference to these denials denials of misconduct he merely states in a second as his sex second interview with the state's attorney and this is saying mccurry that he went up the stairs it is entirely cumulative so the other properly it admitted evidence and then he saw other people raping this woman entirely cumulative to the other properly admitted objects and he says he dropped an iron but we know that's not true because seventy percent of her body and there was iron marks on her body i mean this was mahaffey was guilty in that instance because we have all this overwhelming evidence but we are merely asking as this court and there is no bright line rule about physically or or in voluntarily or having an involuntary confession whether it be physical or psychological it's simply a missed it's not not correct and wilson relied on previous u s supreme court authority that has been expressly overruled by majority united states supreme court we are poor all confessions and they all fifth amendment and that is what the trial court was reviewing and it also was reviewing previous court orders that offered a logical rationale for dismissal and prior proceedings was appointed by counsel that us not impacted by the defendant consistently maintained that he did not confess we asked this court to write as a rule and affirm the decision of the trial court because a harmless error standard presents a dish really manageable standard that has been applied in other