me please the court my name is john no way system state's attorney representing the people still on the way in this case the trial court here abused its discretion in continuing a discovery sanction even when there was no longer a discovery violation the purpose of discovery sanctions are to compel discovery and that purpose was achieved here the state tendered the squad car video to the defense and advance a trial that december first sanction blowing the officers testimony about anything that could have been seen on that video resulted because of that bail yet the tender the video about that december first sanction resulted in the state police two weeks later getting that video to the state attorney's office and all this quickly turned around and gave a copy to the defense defendant had everything before trial the same chance here achieve their purpose if it had all discovery before trial after all what is the purpose of discovery sanctions to continue once discovery violation has been remedied once the once the defendant has all discovery hired counsel what about the question of lack of compliance with the court's order there were several orders that were entered that will not complied with  they were your honor and that's why the trial court put in that sanction and it's because the state police work were it took them time to get it and me the first time it was awarded was on september fourteenth a court it wasn't in court no officer testimony about what could be on that video because of the absence of that the court granted the petition to rescind summer suspension was over an explanation given to the court before his words were entered as to why the video wasn't being produced there was no explanation from the state's police officer and we could not get anything from them they were they it took them time and as a penalty for that there was that sanction and defendant benefited from it in the sense that he had  he had a summer suspension rescinded forty begad and it wasn't until december first when again the trooper came to a record without the video and that is when the court issued this sanction in the criminal side and that is also the first date the then generally your honor because here there was that delay but it actually was actually tendered eventually be the women he isn't to continue this sanction as if the video was never tendered so here continuing the same explosion provided to the court as to why do this tape wasn't being produced wasn't the court within its discretion and trying to sanction it was the time when there was still no video and that's just it if this case is going to trial and there was still no video yet this would be exactly like last night sanction would certainly be valid a stand that the difference here is we know that the video wasn't raised we know it wasn't destroyed because just a few weeks later the state police found it and we got it to the defense in advance of trial he had it i working copy more than two weeks before the february tenth trial date that's the difference here if this case is going to trial if we still do not have that video  it and had everything available to it and thus the trial court struggled with this the trial court recognized that really there was really no prejudice the defense here the truck would sit on the record it's only been a few months a defense has everything now there really hasn't been any my money or extra time spent on this case a speedy trial demand was just on december first and we got that  was found it was preserved and that's the difference to have the same sanction here in a case where the videos tender in advance of trial just a few months after the arrest they have the same sanction here is in class where the video was destroyed and could never be tagged is an abuse of discretion because again it all comes back to what is the purpose of the discovery sanctions court is help time and time again the purpose of discovery sanctions is to compel discussion if there was sanctions are to remain in though it has that video has the opportunity of you what happened on that video even though you had the opportunity to cross examine the officer about what happened on those field sobriety tests i'm still going to keep that sanction in effect even though you have the tape in all the steps but there is not  single reported case or that it's been about in fact in this picture case you're paying court hell and that case that discovery sanction it was put in effect there because the state had tendered the names of the witnesses in the original complain tendered it was unfair and abuse of discretion for the trial court to continue to board those witness testimony and it is the same thing here it is an abuse of discretion to bar this officers testimony even though the defense as the video had more than two weeks to view it in advance of trial this court is held that excluding evidence is a harsh in for recent sanction as it does not contribute to the goal of truth seeking and that's exactly what happened here excluding this evidence even though there's no longer a discovery in our system there's a thirty day time limit on the civil summer suspension the way our court system is set up it's the same court room the same file the same judges in these cases follow along to address so the same time we're having to intermix conversations and on the thirtieth day when the summary suspension was not complied way there was a sanction entered in that case but let's not forget that was still another five months later that the state's conduct continue there were subpoenas issued a judge probes issued a written order to have the illinois state police troop her strike that keeper of records to appear or to have the discovery there she in them over a two month date to be able to comply with patrick wax we come back in december nobody from the illinois state police is there nobody has the leverage the video on another board the state trooper is in court and she says the video prejudice is applying furthermore when i did it then my trial is one that i didn't demand trial your honor and i did ultimately demand trial on december first we're always going to trip back on the defense side because if we demand trial on the first day without all the evidence we may not be doing justice to our client so we give the state ample opportunity and once the state was not going to comply we filed a demand for speedy trial and withdrew the motion paid for it go to court i actually asked at judge propes when the state brought forth to reconsider to ask for monetary damages as an option and she denied those monetary damages and she felt that the sanction that she and her was fair and appropriate based on the conduct in this case she was actually floored by the fact that a video actually existed when you read through the record here i was tendered a blanket video at one point even being advanced to be coming to court and i asked the state's attorney have you seen this video what is it he acknowledges that he had not even watched the video did not know yet he issues a motion to advance the case that i come down to work to get this point video the state failed to comply with numerous discovery her class numerous court orders the illinois state police by judge who ben was told in open court you need to comply with these things you need to help the stage trooper is in court and makes announcements to please wait for the video we wait until after ten thirty eleven o'clock one morning still no video yes these conduct is not acceptable it need video the judge was ready to back dave the defense was wrecked it was the state that was not correct that was an inaccurate representation the state needs to be held to the same standard as all the other attorneys and the defen shred of evidence to what they finally did anything until after a sanction occurred and then they tender a playing video the state is also under a duty to discover this information and turn it over to the defense now i mean i reconsider the sanction the state chose that day not to proceed the state could have proceeded to trial that day the state could have called the witnesses that were available and if they had and they could have then save the appeal for later the position in this case and as recognized in class the similarity of classes there's a lot of information that's not captured on the video and having tried several dui cases i've lost several cases because of the facts that are were field outside of the video conduct in this case while there are some similarities actually the facts in this case in my opinion her theory worse than class in class as there was an inversion accidental destruction of the video here we had continued flagrant and will all noncompliance with discovery for no xplain whole reason it went on day after day also unlike in class in this case we issue unlike in class in this case the judge entered court orders for illinois state troopers to appear on what i implied as the judges in this case explaining to the illinois state police who came to court you need to bring this information next time on the date it was scheduled the sanction was entered and the summer's action hearing did not proceed so then for your client saul license was tendered back correct correct and that was the s times there are some shortcuts the judges take when there's several items on call bed the ends of the results are there and for judicial economy but it's important to remember the facts not the issue in this case that was the civil case in the state chose not to appeal that and they had their right and remedy to appeal that but they specifically never appealed that sanction in the civil summary suspension and there was a separate sanction issued in this case over two months later it was in december that summary suspension was in september and we went all the way till december giving the state over two and a half months to tender this video before judge hope center to sanction it was not the same conduct tendering up playing video it fancying a case without even watching the video i asked the state's attorney on the record have you played this have you seen it his answer was no i go back to my office and i play a video there was reason to ask me to come to court that day so it's a relief to hear or see can hear from this court i'm asking the court to uphold the trial court and say that she did not abuse her discretion in this case here there was a  noncompliance with multiple discovery requests multiple court order if the state knows in the state police knows that they need the time would comply with these orders that'll help future compliance not only can sanctions be short is not moving cases along we do on the defense counsel all we can to move cases along on a as fact the case as we can and when we do everything possible in the state doesn't comply that's unacceptable the trial court examine other possible sanctions they put in play and after the hearing when he reconsidered she believed based on their conduct in the lack of compliance of the state in this case the sanction was still still appropriate and for those i mean if we support the message it will go out if this court affirms this sanction is that it will be clipless and pointless to continue to search for a video if it soon is that sanction or it comes down we got a working copy to him no later than january twenty fifth which was sixteen days before this case was set for trial and why didn't the state's attorney why did why did office seek to appeal a back way and not go to trial on february ten because without that officers testimony about what the officer observed during those field sobriety tests would result and it's the crux of the case cannot be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt driving up the inference without that that is  civil side there was still no video at the time of the summer suspension hearing on september twenty third and that is why the trial court granted the petition to rescind because there was could be no officer testimony about the defendant's performance on the field that was the penalty to the state we didn't see to appeal that because that was the right decision by the appellate by the by the trial court there was no video that time but the culture we stood on no right did it take so many court orders in a court sanction to get this to comply with discovery and the message included in any order of this court would be that this the trial court if the trial court finds that this is a recurring problem can certainly exercise its civil contempt hours and the state police in contempt view it he would have been able to cross examine the officer about her testimony about his failure on the field sobriety tests and yet even though the discovery was fully complied with the sanction remained place and that truly was an abuse of discretion again as in petru continuing in discovery by a discovery sentient being witnesses testimony even though even once that discovery by lation has been remedied is an abuse of discretion this court therefore for all of these reasons and those in our brief should reverse the sanction order of the trial court and should read man this case for further proceedings thank you thank you