and on the appeal of the dismissal of the first petition council at that time suck to bring the issue to the attention of the sport this court held that because that issue had not been raised in the initial titian itself it was not properly before the school so this is the first opportunity and surely after this court made that ruling is when mr booth filed his motion for leave to file successive votes conviction raising that issue mr ruth at the time had told the court had asked his attorney to bring to the attention of the court his objection with the jury selection he was able to articulate what exactly as as a lay person obviously was unable to articulate the illinois supreme court rules and case law of course regarding jury in dr nation but he knew that something was wrong and he told the court that he was only waiving his right to a jury trial because he could see that he would not get a fair trial from that jury that was selected to be the test of course as to whether or clause refers to a factual were legal basis for the claim being not reasonably available before and that's exactly what we have here  supreme court sudden people versus houston it is virtually impossible to raise claim regarding jury selection without the transcripts of the work here it's also well established that ineffective assistance of counsel ca ineffective for failing to not only raise the issue but even obtain the transcripts through which mr booth could have raised the issue in his initial it's not even if the defendant is aware of the underlying claim where the support of the factual legal support for that claim is not available there there has been found to be cause as  there was in people versus stanley rice was prejudiced by this here the transcripts even what was before showing the underlying error made it clear it was only waiving his right to a jury trial because he believed he could not get a fair trial based on the indoctrination that the jurors had been subjected to by the state and made a mistake about it in the state really did not did not dispute this in their brief and i don't expect them to this argument people versus boston is an example out of this district where where a similar jury and indoctrination this found to be erroneous and reversible now this case is different than that in that mr booth instead of taking this trial with a team to jury instead was coerced to to take a bench trial and courts have found as as mr booth was coerced where due to a state's discovery violation the it was the only way to walk to get a delay in order to properly prepare for trial similarly that case it's people rivera where judges annoyance was found to be  v the purpose of the post invasion hearing act is to advance fundamental fairness likewise the cause of prejudice test has been has been tests this court to give him an opportunity to raise the sperm which he has never had competent counsel to advance before by reversing the circuit court's denial of leave to file this success he's now seeking a third by the apple good buys only collected the case and failing to raise a can indeed write proceedings when he clearly had the opportunity to do so and has no explanation as to why he didn't raise anything regarding jury selection until after his post conviction to be denied and did not seek the record any earlier than he did so that there is no showing don't like the trial course decision regarding the conduct of board your you have two choices either objects to the trial course ruling get a ruling there go to the person bring it up on appeal or you he might have said kelso what are you doing trying your case and indoctrinating yours that's probably not going to have any determinative factor in this case but it would be nice to have your opinion on that even if it is posted the food yes i think a closer case as to whether or not the question was proper  a free choice of this point with and as far as the club claims that he's going back to the cos there since he was no cos his this is this is my first chance to complain about the ineffective assistance house that is not correct he had tricked appeal he had a chance to complain about his trial attorney rather rather got regardless of whether his attorney did or not just like to briefly address three items the cause was that mr booth did not have the transcripts and the reason he did not have the transfer of because his counsel and direct appeal wish lists his only source to obtain the transcripts did not order them did not provide them to him he received the transcripts from direct appeal counsel of the trial and of some of the pretrial matters but not of the white here and this is typically how all defendants who are assigned an attorney from the office of state of the finder obtain their transcripts upon receiving these transcripts we can only assume that he thought to himself these are the transcripts that i will be getting there's certainly nothing to suggest that he ever had any knowledge that there was any way for him to attain is that these were something that should have been obtained by direct it seems like i'm being forced to something i don't want to do i can see i won't get a fair trial out of this jury that this prosecutor said a picture of what the case is going to be about and might seem to bring in this is how it's going to be so clearly this was the real one of the reasons i mean just because he had additional concerns with the jury that were not valid does not does nothing to cancel out his very valid complaints about the jury selection last of all i would just like to address the brownell case i wish is is not avoidable to this case because what happened there was not an error underlying so we're where is he also where the defendant in that case chose a may have chosen a bench trial based on something that had occurred before but it occurred in that case the regarding