simply to the first issue which is if there was a bonafide doubt that roger moore was unfit for trial where he was previously found fit on the express condition that he received medication and on the day of trial he reported to the court answer to the court's inquiry that he had not received medication on the day of trial and had not received medication two days prior additionally he indicated that he there was a transfer from division eight to division two at which point he said things school over more than one day correct ok and several days before the data tracked he didn't get as many medications we my presumption is that he didn't get either doses correctly so we have for the let's call it the three day period prior to trial including the data the first data trial no pills no he did not get three pills my question to you counsel is whether or not taking pills for three day three pills is a bonafide down his tuition yes or no there are two two points to make an answer to your question first to clarify because it is unclear from the briefs and i apologize but there was additionally the statement made by roger moore that things were messed up from that division of transfer so there's there's some so there is at least aspiration that there could be more medicine that he was missing throughout that time so i'm so bad be corrected also if you look at the case of people versus jackson in that case the issue was whether or not the defendant was whether there was a bona fide doubt that the defendant was fit to stand before the sentencing injection didn't the didn't the trial court  evaluated he was already receiving medication so you know and that witness hearing it was unequivocal that the doctor said he needed the medication to be fit to on direct examination cross examination redirect recross that was a not some fake case such as people versus hall where the expert came in and testified that it's going to take three weeks before the defendant  work saying know your honor and this is the reason why there was first issue was raising rob before the court's attention by defense counsel at that point defense counsel well i'm sorry then the state asked the judge to please a fire of the defendant as to whether or not  medicated roger moore then indicated that he had never see the medication didn't the judge instruct the defense counsel to go and inquire into it talk to her client and find out what was going on she never said anything exchange happened between the judge and roger moore however when he heard his testimony for more of that you missed a pill something went wrong he missed a pill but they have time this is your position that the judge has an obligation us as that seemed like good procedural practice to you again i'm not trying to to defend it that was good practice however it was made clear on the record after the trial when they're arguing at the at the post trauma also yes he will come out during the is concerned about in terms of the perceived way but there's one important fact if i may though that happened after the trial that relates to what was going on during trial and that fact after trial was that defense counsel checks during that break when they had an opportunity to further inquire defense counsel put on the record that i checked during the break and i found out that there are no further documents etc mack reported that give us any indication of whether or not the defendant actually received the medication so they keep records apparently of what your prescription is but not whether that was dispensed you on every given day so again it would have been great headcounts had counsel brought that to the judge's attention again said listen this is the only evidence that is out there  that can be offered to show that there's a bonafide doubt but the discredit looks at the analysis in people versus jackson and people versus hall what's important is once you have a finding of fit with medication and there's a i doubt as to whether or not you're saving medication you go back look where you have no indication on the record that this defendant would take several weeks before he would decline into a state where there's a bonafide doubt again the standard is simply whether there's a bonafide doubt we're not suggesting that you know he was absolutely unfit in that moment what we're saying is that just as the trial court itself recognized hey i'm uncertain of the effects well that's precisely what having the fitness hearing at that point could have clarified  those are those are i'd say that the two different remedies in this case we believe the facts support a new trial more so than in retrospect if it is hearing simply because as indicated before he amount of information that was developed contemporaneous with the trial is extremely limited in this case right you know we have on the record that they didn't keep documentation that he would of what he was actually receiving and his reporting honestly i didn't get to stay got it yesterday didn't get it two days ago but ever since this transfer  you know again if you were there a fact that i could have pointed to saying that hey there was information that counsel didn't get access to but it was out there and we know it's out there but for counsel scale you to get it the bottom line is had all the information that was available and shared that with you well ok let me clarify what i'm saying is that there's absolutely nothing in the record indicating that there was something else out there so to be clear i'm not saying that that i'm infallible and have a view of all the facts out there that defense counsel didn't have and you know rest assure i'm not saying that at all what i'm saying is that there's nothing in the record that i could point to in reviewing the record to say that counsel had this fact should have brought that forward the from health services so well i'm not trying to condone that this was best practice or anything like that there wasn't enough to say that you know there's this was clearly an effective assistance of counsel so and based on just the cases that we've cited people versus jackson people versus hall the analysis is based on if there is a doubt that you're getting the medication go back to the fitness hearing and look at whether or not there's any testimony that yes it was necessary in this case it was necessary to receive medication and was there any testimony suggesting that there was a period of time that the defendant could go without it and still be and still be considered fit in this case or there was no such testimony in fact contrary to that the testimony was that you need medication up to and throughout trial that was the assumption of the expert for these reasons if there are no further questions we ask this court to remain and first for a new trial or alternatively for retrospective fitness hearing thank you you accord my name is john walters i represent the people of the state of illinois matter before you the as a matter of law as a matter of law missing the one dose or let's say the three doses that you were referring to earlier out of five say as a matter of law that is simply insufficient all by itself and yes you have to race the money thing i don't know how do i know that first of all people versus hansen to twelve only second to twelve it's it specifies what needs to be shown in order to establish one find out and simply missing one dose is not is not sufficient all by itself it specifies three factors that you have to look to determine whether there's a bonafide doubt one is the defendant's demeanor behavior in the courtroom and that's there's where especially the point that you brought out earlier the point about doesn't coun trial with medication there's that me with medication sometimes with medication all the time with medication and what does that mean doesn't with medication me with medication  sometime in this particular instance i i'm not going to fight the record the record said to the witness testified in this case that the defendant needed his medication does that mean no that that he needs every single dose of it  defendants than what an expert testified to if they were then we would just have an expert testify your submitted submitted affidavit or something like that would be done  was adjudicated by a court to be on fit and he was sent away for mental health treatment and he was only brought to tribes only able to be brought to trial because there was a restoration hearing held in their case where they finally determined that he could be fed but only under the circumstances he took his medication that's number one number two is that at the conclusion of the trial in that case the judge ordered a fitness examination so there was something in the judge's mind that this defendant was not right and the judge ordered a fitness determination and at the time of sentencing if in this determination was never done was never done so here the judge proceeds to sentencing without this fitness determination that he's a word and knowing that the defendant hasn't been on medication now interesting point about jackson we don't know if the record isn't clear in jackson of the opinion isn't clear jackson they didn't take the time to specify how many go since the defendant in jackson this you might have missed a month's worth or two month please if you've got some issues if you are not able to communicate with with your client let me know bring this up it's possible there if if there really were an issue on the second prong of fitness the defendant couldn't assist factual question your honor yes you must keep in mind if this this defendant was found to be unwilling or he must absolutely way that when you consider if you're going to if you're going to to make a factual determination here on appeal you must consider is the trial court obviously did in in taking in account all this information remember hanson is three factors the court supposed to look at in terms of whether there's a bona fide doubt or not this defendant was found to be a minor so whatever representations he's making up there about whether whether he received his medication or not it had to be taken with a grain of salt by the trier of fact who was there listening to th fitness here counsel talk to him if you see if there is some issue that i've missed here raise it otherwise i don't find an issue here and that later on in the post trial motion the source was was twofold one was from the prosecutor who said there was counsel could not i'm sorry client couldn't communicate with me he couldn't assist in his defense because of the two points on fitness it's not it's not really should be receiving medication or not it's not a mental wellness to us fitness is about  don't understand the proceedings and ability to assist counsel and the only point the counsel raised was purely medication didn't say anything about the client couldn't understand me we couldn't talk strategy couldn't recall what happened and this is important because in the trial counsel about this whole issue this particular case if that were necessary and obviously our position is that that's not necessary where is he now he's  parole i just want to emphasize there's i want to make sure make clear that there are three points that have to be examined in terms of deciding whether there's a bona fide doubt in one is it the demeanor the conduct of the defendant one is what the what information defense counsel testimony by by medical expert that's certainly one of it's certainly relevant factors but it's one of three road factors it's not the only thing you look at and that's why brown and hall come out the way they do because  dose all by itself raises a bona fide doubt you have to look at under hansen you have to look at these other two factors that's the long illinois have the news that they were milling her and the same person the same expert who found unfit for trial on the express condition that he be medicated so that's that's clear second and more importantly is that b s the state is arguing that based on holland based on brown that they dictate the outcome in this case and that's simply not true in hall the court specifically said we had expert testimony saying it would take at least three weeks for the defend it to regress to a point where they may not be fit and based on that fact it's very different from our case where there's absolutely no testimony saying you know it takes all so long and then he'd eventually regress and i says he needs it up to throughout trial and it's necessary and then finally with respect to the fact that you know it should be the judge's determination not just an expert's opinion that is a true statement of the law however the judge exercised their his or terminations when he listened to the fitness hearing and the expert and inquired as to the fitness and with all that information determine your found fit on a special edition that you're medicated for trial so with respect to that issue the judge did make a determination and that ruling was he needed medication for trial based on those reasons