to possibly lead a jury to give it and you wait there's a narrow circumstances circumstance where polygraph evidence is admissible and that is to rebut evidence their witnesses pretrial statement or a defendant's pretrial admission was coerced by the police the reasoning is that the polygraph exam could could provide an alternative explanation other than coercion for why it witness or the defendant changed his story in this case the exception does not apply there is no evidence of course in here regarding sherry dylan sherry dylan haven't testified and she maintains writer testimony that she only implicated matthews because matthew's made it mission to her she denied that she was coerced by the police that's making  to police officers testified in the state's case and she that they did not threaten or promise her anything in exchange for implicating matthews defense counsel simply wanted to impeach miss jaylen with a the allegation that into my client's mother and having a conversation with her but she denied that she made the statement and the content of the impeaching statement was that she told my client's mother that she only implicated matthews to avoid being charged with the smirk herself and she denied exceptions that have been discussed in the cases that we've both sides of the jefferson jackson and the person in there and it's progeny because for any expansion of the exception to cases where defense counsel merely cross examines a witness about whether she made inconsistent statement at some other time to show that she possibly had my point in making this argument the state points to the fact that defense counsel was allowed to perfect his impeachment by calling reno hall hughley to the stand who said yes three weeks after  the after my daughter was arrested sherri dillon told me that the only reason she implicated her was so she could avoid being charged but the profession of impeachment doesn't open the door to the polygraph evidence the evidence is only about to provide again an alternative explanation is for impeachment and it had and again it would it had nothing to do with often these cases are a person was taken for a polygraph and then they changed their story this polygraph was given three weeks before this alleged inconsistent statement was given and she was long away from the police station it had nothing to do with explaining why she may have made this inconsistent statement again to the language in the case of people versus roseman talks about how this is so prejudicial that a court has to actually merely construe and scrutinize if the polygraph evidence is relevant if it would not cause undue prejudice and if there was no other impeachment available to the state in this case again three weeks after the polygraph that's evidence was completely irrelevant and completely overly prejudicial in this case i again to the state the search that the exception to the b and should be expanded because the cases that have addressed the issue of the admission of polygraph evidence really goes to whether the jury was misled again but they all have to do with the narrow interpretation of jefferson jackson of the polygraph exam evidence explaining why someone changed their story that's simply not the case here  and in any in any case the state's case aside from jones testimony was entirely circumstantial there is an innocent explanation for the physical evidence tying my client to the apartment she lived with the man she had a sexual relationship with him her fingerprint to provided but it also has to be tied to explaining giving alternative explanation of police course in the in this case dillon maintained that she was not co she gave consistent statements while she was in police custody she gave consistent statements to the grand jury she denied making the statement to my client's mother that she says that she had a different reason for implicating her cherry dillon was to show the jury that it's another point in time she said something different it was not to cheat consistent he tried to get her to say she was course she she didn't say that so she she was made the deal she was made you know and it's i s it's so far i get so far away in time you cannot explain why she question made some statement three weeks later in addition the jury was allowed to hear that joan was consistent with her trial  the introduction of statins was not harmless the evidence was far from overwhelming again the state's case was circumstantial don't was the only person that tied my client to the actual crime but there was an innocent explanation for all the circumstantial evidence and so therefore the introduction of the prior consistent statements prejudice my client defense coverage and preserve the issue but it he was ineffective for not objecting to this because clearly it should not have come in in this case it's clear that after defense counsel impeach sherry dillon on the basis that she was a drug user he had little means of attacking her highly copa tory testimony so his strategy was to argue that she gave a statement to the police and that statement was course the implication being that if she gave a statement that was a product of coercion it was not credible and neither was the trial testimony in order to present this defense defense counsel introduce surprise testimony not just in the middle of the trial but in the middle of his cross examination of sherry dillon that she would testify she had a conversation that we mean a whole huey defense mother would testify that dylan told her the only reason she gave a statement with regard to the prior consistent statements the supreme court has a permit that these statements can come in and circumstances other than the two usual exceptions the court has said that the admission of the statements yesterday looked at on a case by case basis again defense counsel used the tactic a surprise witness he didn't disclose her and his answer to discovery and he never disclosed the statement either this was a total surprise to the state and defense counsel told the court i guess it just slipped my mind that left the state in the position where in the middle of trial they had little opportunity to discuss the issue with sherry dillon other than a short break in the trial and him it was very late in the day for the entitle to rehabilitate our films testimony in people versus kathy you have a circumstance where witness five witness testified in cross examination that she could not recall whether she told the police the defendant's name in an interview the state was permitted to introduce testimony her prior consistent statements show she didn't fact name the defendant to police the illinois supreme court said it was proper to admit the prior consistent statement because the jury may have been left with the impression that she never named defendant to police so to in this case the surprise insinuations of coercion may have left the jury with the impression that dylan statement was involuntary and that by extension her testimony was not credible the state would that say they were given to all those opportunities that they would have otherwise given had adequate notice but well that's the whole point your honor that we don't know what the state would have done this was in the middle of a trial it was a very purposeful even though counsel defense counsel tonight it flagrant violation in the status in the middle of a three day trial and there's no weekend in there with a bevy of witnesses and it is forced to with this highly important witness testifying her in the middle of defense testimony that that's the point that the whole point i mean they did what they called a victim witness but in the logan case the poor sad and it doesn't stop very helpful to the state when it senses self serving testimony of a state's witness and that's what we were forced to do we had no opportunity to this is probably the most this is the most important this in the case other than the defendant she couldn't be more critical defense counsel knew about her the whole huey and her statement he admitted months he had all the time in the world to paris to france in light of that but the state did and what was is there a possibility we might  examined dylan differently untracked certainly there is is there a possibility we may have called different witnesses certainly there is so we asked for leave to center testimony solely for the purpose of rehabilitating her testimony it was just admission of improper evidence cannot complain if there was air with regard to this it was harmless again the claim was not properly preserved for review the evidence i'll talk about a little bit later was not close harmless it's less it's less prejudicial when a witness is repeating her own statements as opposed to when a third party repeats the witness the statements the third party repeating the witness statements give us more credible that's what the cour rehabilitation and that the state governor used her her grand jury testimony or her statements a subset of evidence it was her trial testimony and her trial testimony was very thorough it took the state's case from start to absolutely more than sufficient to convict this defendant it's not a circumstance where her truck testimony was we were strongly impeached it was it was extremely thorough and the only impeachment had to do with the coercion so under those circumstances in now in this case i said there was a surprise testimony and the state asked to present polygraph evidence until in the course of no it's not warranted yet but you may remove your motion later so later in the fence case the defense immediately after that the court using almost word for word the limiting instruction in people versus binion explained the purpose of the polygraph exam to the jurors it was to explain her knowledge that the jersey should not surmise what the results of the test  distinction well your honor that that the key concerns are does is the state using the polygraph evidence as a shield or as a sword that's the metaphor that's used didn't we introduce the evidence an events and that's all it was and that's the only way that the state of you get in closing it was never argued substantively it was fair it should be considered harmless talking about had the keys to his home she said she was able to unlock the multiple doors to get into the place according to those tests the finding failed to call the police when she found brown's body she was seen stealing brown's television the next morning she lied to damaged she gave conflicting stories to the police in a number of respects and they were just they weren't small conflicts either she claimed that she was not given her constitutional rights at the police station the state should have video where she was and she  your honour's regarding the prior consistent statement argument the state of ohio talks about how they were surprised at this when they were given the opportunity to interview or they were allowed to impeach her  impeachment by calling their own investigator who said that she overheard hall huli say that yes maybe dylan did say that matthews committed this murder so they won't really this is the fact that this came in the middle of a trial didn't really harm her case there would have been anything else they could have done there were no other people in the conversation with whole huli and dylan so no no other witnesses could be called to that conversation there was really nothing else they could have done so they were afforded the opportunity to investigate and they did rebut the impeachment  polygraph evidence that was outlined in jefferson and jefferson by our illinois supreme court there's simply no case where a witness herself deny she was ever coerced and some impeached third parties testimony of a statement that may she may have made statements under duress we don't have that situation here we have a possible inconsistency even made three weeks to show you once a neighbor who was my client's mother she could have just been trying to appease the mother by saying no i you know i didn't mean to implicate your daughter i mean they were they knew each other and that's an explanation for the statement as well so we're going to binion's simply don't they're not on point with this case and they don't they don't direct no questions for these reasons that the evidence here the sa aside from jones testimony was was circumstantial it was an undisputed that my client lee had been living with mr knows if she could remember what crack how she was she was out all night that night she came in went from different people's apartments she was telling the police what she did you like she knows it she told the difference she wasn't sure where she was