determination as to whether this defendant should be transferred to adult court but there is still good long is there not here in illinois supreme court case in  four people versus j s which held that the automatic transfer prevention did not violate a juvenile defendants substantive due process  or procedural due process so how can we even think about doing that and in essence change the provisions in light  and under the reason even in those cases they're basically saying that i did the juvenile who's different and in step in the sub standard way and that's what my argument  basically saying that this would be unconstitutional for this to go ahead in the manner that it has because first of all the transfer statute doesn't take into account anything about the defendant's  individual factors and mess with these cases say that the that it has to be done and so part of the sentence is automatically policy and then we have to get a sense of the firearms which is automatically imposed just like it would be on the adult but now if we look at these two the supreme court cases and then another case those cases involved capital punishment for this situation while my argument is that he is going to get the occluded of a life sentence and i think that the sentence that he didn't get and even minimum sentence in this case is sufficient enough to was done by discretionary transfer so i mean just as judges and ask what do you think the senate should be and that's another part of the sentencing issue that even apart from the supreme court cases you just talked deterrence and protection of the public and pronouncing the sentence so are you suggesting that this court substituted its judgment and crime is not enough i think you have to take into account the core teachings of you know her from her grand there was not done in this case as far as the course saying well you know we need to turn this because we can't have kids run think you should avoid doing in cases like this because they are to be treated differently and in a substan he's like this i think a defendant should be given every chance he has to present evidence like this if it's if it's really needed for his position that this was self defense but if you could move to some of the factors that we have to consider and tell us why you think that even if counsel had raised there that he might have been successful in keeping  and how does it make the statement spontaneous well it seems to me that all these people were in the same neighborhood they all the each other they knew each other's family stay with their jerk pretty much party we pretty much couldn't stand each but in this case if we take each case on its own backs there is one they were brought together and because it's too must there should disqualify this from coming into specially because of the necessity he needed for very well look at what he's the founder he has self interest he's the one who goes to prison if convicted and he's the only one who's new to saw the gun here we haven't he's hasn't he has an opportunity to present the evidence that somebody else saw the gun as well really doesn't go into whether or not how this saw the gun or not and whether he took the gun later but those girls testify that they saw how with  at the time of the shooting then again this is really supportive information because it places you there again with the opportunity to actually see the gun and then we had a police officer testif of him being placed in those positions signature but how do we reconcile the two girls who say his hands were off with the relevance necessary in other words is this statement coming in so as to be relevant material he was one you know we're both we hang out these two were my point is we have to consider all of the evidence you can't just say ok this corroborates it will ignore everything that doesn't corroborate or actually flies in the face of the reliability the statement well if you have statements that corroborate it i think in bad ways extremely heavy in favor of the mission because it's an objective standard than just because somebody else is saying that it doesn't really doesn't matter honor brought out several of those factors and the statement was made two months after the funds it's when the two gentlemen are in juvenile detention they are not friends or close acquaintances who the statement was made to and if that can be used as an incriminating statement this is made between two juveniles in the juvenile detention center in one of the other cases such as the one case which my attorney in the police officers so those are some people who could bring charges against him for that so when there is no home against people of interest well it what you have is the defendant's brother saying this guy said something that might lead to charges against him maybe when i defendant's mere statement doesn't make him subject to criminal prosecution and so therefore it's not against you know that's not a balance so i would turn that and say you know here is the defendant's brother who scene and the officer didn't notice that ivery had a gun i really did not mention to the officer in the statement about a gun as your honour's notice the two sisters natasha in the police the glass both said that guy at the scene and it was never located  in this case it was not really spontaneously made the two young gentlemen in juvenile detention ever he could have been seeking either to curry favor with the defendant brother counsel never had the brother sherman call making sort of offer proof regarding what you know he would have testified to and that is one factor to consider window at the guy on the sidewalk if the defendant he had been sitting in a chair in the room when he goes to the window when they see the spider the victim coming up the walkway there is just there is testimony that i think it's the younger sister felicia unlock the door there not the whole that spider into the house you know to get in a confrontational situation with the defendant had the defendant you know walked away from the window going to the bathroom you know he's not visible or in danger from somebody out on the sidewalk and the guy's not getting in but basically there are not part of the reason for that is this they say that is too harsh and that the trial judge is not being given the opportunity to exercise any sort of discretion he is required acting together to create the harsher sentence and you have certainty you have cases like your brief about that i don't recall anything indicate yes or no i don't need to take time to find it but i just have a bad  is serious behavioral problems a very severe history there's not indications of rehabilitating potential and that is  decision when he announced that sentence i don't think it was lightly made or imposed the over it this is i think only just the defendant and the effect on heal that means that you are eliminating half of the equation which is that you also have to consider the protection of the public and the administration justice in this case the trial judge clearly when he's making this determination and i think in this case he's considering the youth and the danger that he presents in the fact that you know  no i think the court took that into consideration he could have given the tenant the minimum but he didn't because he viewed him as dangerous and i think as you said you know here we have to give to the crown trial court judge who heard the evidence he's seen the defendant's you know behavior in his courtroom both during the trial and in all the pretrial there are continuing episodes in the pre trial proceedings where they're hearing words coming back about the defendant's behavior while he's incarcerated before trial and the judge is trying to be really encouraging to the defendant and encourage good behavior and it's here had given the fifteen year old kid with with his criminal history the maximum we would refer and the touchstone is simply that the trial court exercised discretion i think he exercised appropriate discretion is that ok so you're saying it's appropriate here yes which is what is required you have to wait you have to take into consideration are the circumstances  all over you know there's numerous episodes of prior encounters with between the defendant and his feeling and spanier and his associates the judge refers to it as the wild wild west you know that that goes to whether you think it's appropriate for dr stone is that the trial court you could exercise discretion that that's that's what makes this sentence ok and then i suppose we sit and say well where there was appropriate discretion that's the issue went out on the porch and shot three more times at him but now when you're saying take into account is he yes there may be evidence that the judge knew he was fifteen by do you believe he took into account the factors that these supreme court cases talked about which are that somebody who is youthful doesn't have the same judgment the same ability to restrain themselves has less impulse control those factors that accounts count so i believe this referring to i think he did but he's also weighing it administration of justice you know with the defendant was not heard the victim was not particularly nice person and then there's the ongoing feud with you know everybody the accusations about you know different assaults or shootings of so he was not a nice person but he doesn't deserve to die you know he was the one that really got the death sentence you know his family is never going to have any contact with him this defendant you know can still have time to cope with this family  but he is in fact incarcerated where the rest of the public will be safe perhaps if he chased him you know further down the sidewalk to events inside when he does this trial shot which apparently hit and then the victim tries to run away and he goes you know away some distance this hit with out on the porch shot three more times after hitting room and the guy is running away if he had continued down the street you know maybe if you shot him more than you know the one shot those are the sort of circumstances you know had he had an actual prior conviction for a shooting incident had he had a prior firearms those would have i think you know bush did it up to a maximum situation but all of that would be worth five years those are the type of things i hadn't really considered so i'm thinking off the top of my head what could max amount but oh i think you don't really have to look at you know what could have been worse and i noticed you came up with a lot of things you would think it would be very little you know because if you experienced twenty seven libraries these are the facts that the judge had to boost it up to the fifty five and you know it does take into consideration the defendant's youth the fact that at fifteen he has this history this extensive history that doesn't bode well for his rehabilitation and his rehabilitation and his the you know usefulness of him inside in the future hanna does have to be valence against the protection of the public and the justice in this case one of the factors that the trial judge also cites is deterrence he refers to this is the wild wild west everybody has guns everybody shooting everybody all the time if you want to have a chatroom in fact you know you do have to everybody has guns everywhere all the time and they're going oh so probably the most important substantive piece of evidence supporting a corroboree the statement is why didn't how testify if he had not seen a gun why did he have to lose nothing yet no civil or criminal liability at stake if he didn't see a gun there was no reason for him not to testify and unless he saw the gun unless he took the gun musters an exception to the hearsay rule and else like an opening for a defense counsel to go oh yes there is but he did reduce he was feeling in your opening argument we went through the factors and basically you you fell back on that the course is suggesting that he needs to ruin his favor but i believe that the record just as it as it is right now substantially corroborates that it puts him there at each specific moment in time which is important his defense and he does have one issue and the guy does exercise his fifth amendment right and i think it's important you know it's just it happened three or four months earlier you know fourteen years old so we are talking about a of case the exact opposite and it sounds like he used his youth against the defendant can't have much of kids running around the neighborhood with guns well you know and deterrence you know to a normal person if the