your honour's the charges in this case is a rose from an incident involving a group of kids and incidentally my childhood neighborhood of beverly on the south side of chicago in february of two thousand and eight the state's case was presented through the testimony of three teenage complain these young men testified that bell my client and his friend who were on arms approached them and fifteen to twenty of their mostly male friends as they were hanging out on a street corner and attempted to rob them according to these boys bel punch one of the boys in this group when he resisted being robbed by the close of the evidence the judge acquitted of six of the seven charges finding that the complainant account was quote absurd this is not your thinking more clearly before they bring charges that aren't substantiated by any reasonable evaluation of the evidence despite this and despite his finding that the complaints falsely accused of attempting to out them the judge nonetheless convicted  of aggravated battery on a public way your honors because the evidence in this case did not prove that bell punched one of the complaints by the name of james bennett beyond a reasonable doubt his battery conviction should be reversed i think the most important fact in this case is that the evidence the state presented as proof of the battery charge was the testimony of these three complainants whose account the judge determined with to be totally unaware of the i believe these  testified that when this friend purportedly got out of a car which they were driving with their girlfriends and suddenly a cost of the complaints and their friends a group of fifteen to twenty other teenagers as they when hanging out on the corner minding their own business and they provided a pretty incredible explanation for these events they said essentially that ballet and his friend both of whom were also teenagers both of whom also lived in beverly intended to rob them and attempted to do so by demanding their money and sticking their hands in the pockets of six or seven of of these boys that were around the corner it was during this robbery or purported bribery that bell punched one of the boys in the face when he swatted ballasts hand away from his  pocket the complaints testimony was actually even more remarkable in the sense that they claimed that ballard planned the robbery by b for approaching with his friend after exiting the car where their girlfriends were sitting he actually scopes them out about five minutes earlier by his alone some about fifteen feet away from them while talking on the cell phone only to disappear and then returned with only another single an armed male in order to sensibly perpetrate this robbery now it's incredible and the judge thought it was incredible because the judge rejected this entire account as absurd of sunbed dalla and his friends were first and searched the pockets of seven or eight of the young men in this group but taking none of the wallets and cell phones which they said that they had on their possession and contrary to human experience the bell and one friend who was they were on i'm getting grossly outnumbered as the judge recognize we're trying to provoke a confrontation with a group of fifteen to twenty mostly now teenagers some of whom were also football players at mt carmel high school and yet despite his wholesale rejection of the complaints account the judge nonetheless convicted of aggravated battery in a public way the judge found that there was obviously some sort of confrontation between these two groups of boys and that oh it was likely absurd that no one was struck this was the judge's finding the aggravated battery conviction that we are appealing today however it's our position that given that the judge essentially found the complaints falsely accused val and his friend of attempting to rob them it's unreasonable for the judge to accept as true the complaints claim that bell punched one of them when he resisted this what the judge found to be a fictitious robbery at least not without some other credible reliable or independent corroboration of this this punch and yet there really is no crowd gratian you know bell did not confess the state's witness officer so tact testified that when bell was questioned at the police station and did make some statements although did not actually make a full formal statement that he told the same story he did a trial which is that some white kids had thrown some snowballs at his friend's car at which point he and his other friend stepped out of the car and had some words with them  try to embarrass them for throwing snowballs and then not owning up to it there's no photos of the bruise that james bennett allege that he received officer clancy who responded to the seam about fifteen yes yes i mean just as a point of clarification yes he is one of the witnesses he's one of the witnesses that the judge found to be incredible he's james bennett tim o'brien and brian boise are all they all profited the same account the allowed there was question in the usa sexton objected to this as irrelevant and the judge ruled that no this goes to show bias whether these officers for instance are not including facts in the report and then later on corroborating and the best possible way the testimony of of their colleagues or their cohorts sons who's who is alleging a battery yes of certainly goes to show bias and i think that would be a totally legitimate explanation as to why the redness is the only cooperation we have it crops up for the first time at trial you know but that's not the kind of quality corroborative evidence we need in this case because given the judge's finding that these complaints were totally incredible i mean i really didn't recognize it as such the judges judge found that that his associates were on their merry way going about their business now that is a new rejection of the complaints testimony that bell scoped them out five minutes before this conversation and the confrontation it's a rejection of the idea that they were standing there on the corner and then were suddenly accosted the judge found that you know he said although it doesn't really matter to me it's more likely than not that someone in this complaint is going to throwing snowballs that should matter to him now testified that that's what happened that he was driving by with his friend and their girlfriends and the kids through snowballs of course that matters it's another instance an instance in which the judge just fine him that the defendant's version was more true than the complaints a complete and said no snow boss twenty kids hanging out the street and the sounds and chicago in the february night group what do you make of that it's very confusing i mean the state that's the state's evidence on that point i didn't seem to make much of it as part of their overall theory i mean they did have a rebuttal witness who testif testified that defendant only read cadillac but you know with respect to the complaints account of what happened it didn't seem to present a coherent theory with respect to the right cadillac so i don't make much of it actually at all you know what the judge found and i think it's interesting with respect to the punch because that is the one charge that the judge entered a guilty verdict on i mean it's likely absurd no one was struck is this is these are these words of someone who has an abiding conviction that ballo struck that it across the face beyond a reasonable doubt i mean i think what the judge found is that something happened here something must have happened how did this case get in front of my courtroom but this is just conjecture the idea that there was obviously a confrontation which the judge believed was instigated by the complaints and then someone must have been struck you know the supreme court has found that you know the idea of the defendant is probably guilty does not suffice i think it's interesting the judge provides no reason points to no evidence for a right you think that's a likely someone was struck and since we argue this is a compromise verdict and it just not comport with the presumption of innocence it's also i think you know i know it's it's it's collateral the right poll if you read it expresses the judge's dissatisfaction with the state's evidence the judge laments the prosecutor's decision to charge the case in its finding of guilt at the motion for a new trial or the judge doesn't seem to recall accurately what his findings were again he says that this was not a case that he thinks should have been brought perhaps could have been handled differently i mean before sentencing who encourages them to seek a paladin from the president of the united states or the governor this is an instance in which the judge although he entered a finding of guilt i think it's really clear the record on the whole and in particular his findings at the at the end and the close of the evidence don't support the verdict in this case and we would ask this court to could up and i really went to morgan park high school has a young daughter worked his whole life and no criminal convictions that we know of you know and this is a case i think that got out of control and i do suggestion here but it is because you know the fact that al gore not that i recall but it's i mean it's not that i recall from the evidence although it's possible i mean they were holding court for sure you know i mean this is but that you know they would that something happened here and it's certainly not clear what is the judge said  and the police were called and the witnesses told their story and did it did they know they were staying in a courtroom later and and having to i'm falsely accused someone of attempted robbery no i don't think at the time but these are changed ways i think the case and i think the matter snowballed to forgive the pun you know and then they they couldn't back out there was no way to go you know perhaps maybe maybe they felt trapped and they certainly although james bennett the one that was allegedly punched said he never spoke to his friends  hears you to repeat that that that's what i mean the people i believe that's what the judge concluded yeah and that you know they were there was a sort of a showdown here this was a display of my chief now and you know he goes i don't know different high schools but the bottom line is this thing is this is this is not a case in which we can say well something happened here so someone's going to have to be held responsible this is an instance in which the defendant must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this happened and when you have this incredible outrageous testimony of these complaints which the judge recognize something more is required and we don't have it in that case thank you ron thank you please the court the only question in this case on appeal is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving deference to the trial court's findings finding the answer that question is yes and the richelle perfect could have found him guilty the people present and testimony from the three occurrence witnesses three eyewitnesses describe the events that occurred that evening and february eighth two thousand and eight one hundred seventeen point two of the witnesses had a bet the victim in another eyewitness saw what happened identified the defendant as the person the man who punched james bennett the third witness third eye witness candidly stated he he saw something like a swinging was even sure if he saw swing and he certainly didn't try and identify anyone what not just a red face from the cold weather right on the lower right portion of the victim's face he did hear  one sixty five to one sixty six you know six the trial court considered all this evidence it considered well while it rejected the evidence of of the attempt for operate it did not outright reject these witnesses testimony it rejected portions of it in the la states that's perfectly allowable the trial court is in a better position to view the evidence they they view the of the witnesses testifying they hear it they can see the witnesses demeanor they are in a better a trial court is in a better position to determine whether witness is lying or not lying or telling the truth or in which part of that testimony and this trial court very carefully considered all the evidence well i think what he was saying is i don't believe that's how it happened and i think maybe he thought that the victims maybe didn't want to say they were trying to stop us but that doesn't mean he didn't believe the occurrence it doesn't mean that the victim wasn't punched defendant's own testimony he says i was there i started an altercation with these victims he says that he at the intersection you know if he said he at the intersection i can't explain that i can only explain niecy evans was and it's friend has no reason to say what but by she did that but the question of guilt or innocence does the state's obligation so you've got to prove the defendant guilty based on what miss evans said no absolutely not but your honor the fact that these witnesses may have seen the care a little bit closer  further part does not mean that they're lying about that it does not mean you can't believe them because they don't have the same distance in fact when when one of the witnesses was asked about the number of feet i think it would might been evidence couldn't tell you the number of feet so what how there is not at all what i'm saying what i'm saying is the distance from the car and i say that only because if one is the defendant was not staying within one to two feet which doesn't it was clearly his way of saying look i didn't do this i stayed within one to two feet the fact that he  twenty young men on the same corner they're all teenagers and he said it just didn't make any sense so for no reason it didn't make any sense it didn't make any sense to do that for no reason he said then he believed that something this confrontation whether the snowballs or a gesture he believes something occurred earlier you've made a point out of how the defendant started this confrontation with the the judges that it was so balls or gestures put the start of this confrontation on the young group of fifteen to twenty young men who were standing on the corner claiming that corner wouldn't that be the sort of the confrontation if you're driving down the street on your merry way not doing anything to anybody and somebody makes a gesture which we have no testimony about we're throw snowballs which we do have testimony about isn't that the actual start of the confrontation are they the ones that are provoking the confrontation according to the don't think you can discount the fact that the trial court at the end of this ruling stated the elements of the crime with in this particular instance and said all of those elements were proven beyond a reasonable doubt he wasn't making the up finding point your honor if you take the court's rulings as a whole and you read them completely not taken out of context yes what he was saying is he believed the defendant struck the victim he also say you believe the state's witness is a lie he did say that we said i don't believe that happened so he wasn't necessarily calling them liars like i don't believe anything that yours that they were saying what he was saying is i think i don't believe that particular portion of your testimony and we have is there is it's very frequently her as a witness lies about one thing but tells the truth about another and it the trier of fact is the one who is supposed to make that determination we can't go off we don't see the witnesses if a witness and not this is the case here because i wouldn't know but if witness is slow and i testifying at trial you may not see that on the record book the judge sees it if you know before we before we move on and getting back to my colleagues point about no honor i just don't think it's necessary that you you have to assume that the victims are going to be going after someone just because they punch someone is it reasonable to believe that to an arm seventeen year old would approach a you before you run out of time i want to ask you to just finish up when you finish up by telling us specifically how you think the state proved that this is a graded battery have to happen beyond a reasonable doubt i just like to hear the state to the to the street the victim who has been proven to have a different version of the same event you and i can explain why one worse so that it would seem like this was a terrible thing that happened to him as opposed to playing it down at the if it's in the presence of his mother belief that he was not to the to the street according to us or not i interrupted justice pathak asked well i'm sorry you wanted me to address what i know ok and if the whole this whole case revolves around whether or not the state proved this defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and i would like you to just end by injury and he did say that any call of the injury to the caller in question was he asked did you see an injury and he said i start read this to the lower bottom portion of the victim's face and you know you can get a red face when it's cold outside but not just in one portion on your lower lower part of your face isn't generally going to just be red only if it's just because if it's if it's just because of the cold or nutritional of injury is there evidence of all metal medical attention require no medical attention but your honor this is this there was a certain amount of injury is not necessary for this crime and i think th overplay that but that's still evidence that corroborates the victim's testimony any second eye witness testimony in the trial court choose to chose to believe that testimony and what we have to look at here is whether it is so incredible so one reasonable so improbable that the defendant hit this victim and i don't think you can look at a case that says three eyewitnesses and crab ration by a police officer no no that's not correct your honor the defense said i didn't do it he puts on a witness who well he told the police about the other people in the car failed to mention this particular witness to mention that she was in the car niecy evans apparently didn't tell the police or or the state's attorney that she was the other witness this tatiana williams yana was in the car but a trial she appears and she testifies and she corroborated defense testimony i think you have to question whether that's believable the other witness niecy evans who was driving the car did not testify that defendant did not strike the victim impeached throughout that beast eye witnesses that you referred to what they impeached throughout their testimony on a number of different aspects of this event is the sense they were of peace it was on small things like did you see the man with the things but you have to look at what he's talking about your honor when you when he's talking about the crime this is an event that you would remember this is an event that you wouldn't if you know that if you saw somebody punch someone you would know it where's the we're the kind i was very probably talk about to your friend he may have talked about it in fifty i think he did say you did but even if he did it doesn't mean he was lying about it in fact the fact that there's well let's let's go over mr bennett's testimony he said he the defendant put his hand into his pocket started to put his hand into his pocket and he pushed away the defendants here he said the defendant punched him and he said that he was not knocked to the ground later denied that he was knocked to the ground and he was later found to be incredible on whether or not the defendant put his hand in or nearest pocket so you're telling us we should believe him on one thing but not the other two secor you have to take all of the evidence together and what i will say is in terms of him being knocked down and testimony that came out bennett consistently said i was not knocked down i walked across the street and sat down put it when  officer testified that that's what bennett said he said i put that down because my sergeant who was there told me that so we now have a chain of oh well we don't know all the sergeants are telling each other what happened neither of them were there i mean these cops weren't there but they're telling each other what happened well and i'm just saying if we have to look at the testimony we have to look at the testimony that came out and you can take it all together and you have to look at the credibility of the court was there looking at the credibility and i don't think you're giving enough credit to the fact that the witnesses testified to the same story with minor in consisten and in the defendant is basically this testimony is just an i didn't do anything i was good in saying that he still when he said he got out of the car and yelled at these kids who threw snowballs at it ok yelled at him he did not he certainly didn't admit to punching the victim he said instead he said i stayed within one to two feet of the care that i find that it's incredible that he's actually saying i stood here i slid a minute this say something you get a bunch of high school kids twenty to two and you're finding it incredible that the two who are yelling about the snowballs don't want to stay close to the car so they can get away fast when th twenty come after i don't think it's incredible they were yelling at snowballs do you think it's incredible that they stayed close to the car so they could get away real fast you know i think it's incredible really actually took the time to pull over and get out of the car but stay close to the car but the bottom line is it doesn't matter what i think it matters with the truck or things whether it's reasonable and we have to go back to that he clearly stated those elements were proven beyond reasonable doubt he looked at all the evidence he saw all the witnesses testify and he find that a witness lies about a material point you don't have to discount his entire testimony to believe portions of it i think we have to keep looking at that and i i would also like to point out that i think the whole thing about this  the whole thing about the charging instrument it's red herring it's red herring because regardless of what the court said what we're looking at is the charges that were brought whether they were proven and the court found they were law i don't think there necessarily has to be a visible injury i think you have to prove there wasn't a striking you have to prove there was that he was hit you don't have to prove that you know that he needed to go to the hospital that he was bleeding that he had a cut whatever under the hospital but yes they need to prove injury and they didn't and i think you know i'd like to address officer clancy's testimony since this is you know this is supposedly the crab aeration as it's  i think we are trying to hone in on exactly what officer clancy said and and may say saxon said you would cost six stating your scene that he had a groups and the witness responded he had a redness on his face where he said he got hit that you're right that you report no and again i think i mean really this is an ascent to the prosecution's representation did you know injuries you know the injuries correct correct and that was on the right part of my portion of his face right right so this is not a witness independently recollecting you know an injury on the bottom right portion of his face this is a witness who is you know testifying in agreement with the representation that the prosecution prosecution is making you know with respect to lucy i mean it's interesting the same advice on her testimony in such a way because she's a rebuttal witness i think this display is the i think this is the quality of the complaints a co in the state's case in chief also you know with respect to the substance of her testimony it's truly a wash i mean until issue rather bell punch back and you know she didn't say that he didn't but she didn't say he did and you know what she did zero issue you know i think although obviously the judge entered a finding on the battery charge which is why we're here he's these fines don't really support that verdict and i think looking at the nature of those findings you know  it's apparent he's finding him you know there's a lot of talk about deference he's fine it was said the victims were mine that they were mine and that's his finding and it is absolutely this court's responsibility to to look at the evidence to review the record and find  then we would never have a reasonable doubt argument on appeal that deals with the credibility of the witnesses i mean the first district in people versus arcos back in one thousand nine hundred sticks they reversed a murder conviction and a case in which the judge found the state witnesses to be completely incredible so it's somewhat souness with this and they found that there must be independent corroboration if you can rely on the testimony of a witness or a prior in that case a prior inconsistent statement grand jury testimony in custody a statement witness to prove an offense and yet in the last remark and moment there unreliability to incredibility the man has to be some other corroborating evidence to prove the state's case i mean what we're talking about here back and forth is the sort of evidence soup but that's not the way trials are supposed to work trials must work with the state presents its best case and produces an abiding conviction of guilt and that's what's missing in this case and therefore we request that this court reversed when dallas ruling it doesn't matter his no effect on my ruling so it doesn't matter do you have an impact on the police activity in this case case and twenty kids and yet there are only three witnesses one of whom doesn't remember but couldn't see what happened why no eighteen witnesses they were all standing around exactly if they wanted to they could have it if this was a conspiracy saying it's a conspiracy i'm just asking about the level of police activity in this case you're telling me that there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt and i keep going back to the fact that there are two witnesses one of them is the victim one of whom is a friend of his and they're both saying among other things in which they were found to be incredible that this defendant punched him and i'm asking why with all those cops around they didn't ask more kids to come as witnesses or what happened or get more statements i can answer why they did what they that there's more policemen or less policeman he is shouldn't he have any bearing and the issue here the issue is at trial whether the evidence proved him guilty and well now i don't believe that that your honor i mean i don't know where that comes from frankly i don't know what why that is ok so to sum up you have two witnesses for the victim an a and a friend and for the defense witnesses obviously disagreed with the victim witnesses yes how is that evidence that there was a punch how was that evidence that there was a bunch of i mean i'm just asking the question you've got the victim saying he punched me in the fencing i didn't how was it corroborated evidence that there was a punch i think that's the trend or does the trial court decides i'm a look at if i have it you could have ten witnesses on one side and might not believe any of them against one witness on the other side and that's why court is there to make that credibility to determination did he find the defendant incredible on any point of his testimony yes he found me credible about the fake and it's just money that he didn't punch the victim  some different words he still he doesn't have to explain exactly why he found what he found but he did give a pretty lengthy explanation he said is it this is what i do believe occurred this is what i don't believe it or it has no be reasonable they have the problem and within the scope of human experience i would say that that it is your honor and i i wonder if what judge cliff says was the way he worded it could easily also be interpreted to say well if there was a punch it's lucky that there weren't twenty more in this and that there was a melee of young men you know bashing each other southpoint ave the state's evidence clearly proves beyond a reasonable doubt that all of those elements did in fact occur however minor the injury may have been and then he finds guilty so i think he's pretty clear about it whether he made it very clear at the end before he found the defendant guilty thank you you thank