testified under oath he told them my life is destroyed i cannot i'll lose my child i cannot keep my pension and risk aside himself he was totally freaked called him a craven jurist the state's attorney said what he did was outrageous and he had his own press conference after the judge wilson had a press conference which was i heard of a judge and a press think of a case more clear that the injustice of this young man he didn't have a fair trial because the judge had made up his mind what he was going to be doing before the trial because he wanted to protect his reputation and protect his job and the cases all say they have acquired this judge is a structural defects so you don't have to actually show specific oh ordinarily never did a judicial and they call for it and that led to the legislators promoted it but he never did but when he was when this case was pending it was still that could still be a possibility it wasn't  to say this because he had a personal interest in the outcome he needed to save his job save his reputation be able to continue to be a judge and that was a six hundred to six hundred years of really rare sentence and infect we look at it it's in the record all in a sense a judge will sit around the time of this case and there's only one sentence out of like fifty which with which is two hundred and six years so i think there is actual prejudice but i think the standard should be and if you look at the law if  have a judge that is correct and is trying to protect this is not a case where you've got money this is a case where the judge is trying to protect  its reputation his job and to cover up his prior corruption so he had a personal interest in outcome of this case and that's why it's probably a probable attorney and the news media but he didn't know about it that that's why he took a bench trial why would you take a bench trial for the case of a police officer when you know all the pressure on the judge so he did it and this is the result of it and  the pre sentence report this and making some kind of reference to his age which judge wilson didn't and that it's not enough and that's peacock which is this panel actually found that that was insufficient so he gets in two hundred dollars or six hundred years without ever ever deciding whether he could be rehabilitated or returns saying oh well there's other cases yes they do say suppose they have a hearing and as an applied but even then it wouldn't be success but he prejudged that he doesn't know the record the record we're going to make no criminal convictions and he's eighteen years old that's into me at the violation of it's shit and we can share the hearings so that i will sleep what we need to do is get the case remain and then assuming you don't reverse on the forty one issue get the case remain ended and let us put on our evidence so we could have a hearing to show that he could be restored to citizenship and the judge just didn't follow and whatever evidence they felt necessary to show their burden of showing a nexus and actual bias regarding judge well seems corruption from the alamein case and in this case as judge mother not a correctly found ultimate legal findings made in this case by the judge there's just a slant and you discussed up or wanted to know about what standard to use regarding the bias whether it should be probability of bias or an actual showing and the people's position supported by the cases of gracie fair and outro an opinion issued by this court shows that actual bias is the proper standard in this case and i would direct this court's attention to the seminal and they found yes there was because maloney in that case took the bride and then returned it when he realized that the investigation great lord investigation was was in compassing and being viewed throughout his entire trial on that case and he voiced concerns that oh boy if i continue on already under investigation and so the court found in that case that that showed that there was a p that we're focusing on there was also no evidence that his judgeship was in jeopardy yes there was a public outcry right after the trial again all of my well there was some doubt there was clearly there was something in the record that between judge nelson and cooley occurred where wilson called bully and said to him you told me this was a weak case you told me there was no evidence i'm in trouble this is this is terrible this is terrible  my job is on the line my reputation is on the line but let's let's not forget the fact that even with all of that trepidation and that fear of what was going on justice was and continues to take the bride in that case seven and this trial started in december one thousand and seventy seven there was you know no choice concerns by judge wilson regarding his reputation pertaining to this particular case and it was based on that and the none of the fact that the hopkins case found relevant to show that the lower standard of probability of bias should be applicable was not proven by this defendant at the end of then she hearing and judge citing testified there was a was a hard job but yes he said it was an equal opportunity judge chuck and i i mean yes i who testified regarding being unhappy with some of the ones that were made at the trial and as an advocate he was lying why that was wrong but the bottom line is and when you look at this record what's happened after the finding of guilt in the sensing not one evidentiary ruling by judge wilson has been challenge wrong with that anyway it was brought up to the attention of the judge will send regarding this and judge wilson said this is a public trial this is a situation where there is a police officer that's been murdered and didn't have anything as  ping else going on here and signs that he had no evidence of any threats being made by the police officers in that case or and wilson said i'm not taking that into consideration and in fact cites it that's one of the reasons why he chose to have a bench trial not only up because there is a legal defense that he was going to present but because he knew that judge wilson was able to partition things that were going on in the courtroom better than the jury and most importantly with respect to the presence of the police officers there has to be a connection that the presence of the police officers led to the guilty verdict and that connection not be made by this the kind in this case but one just looks at the overwhelming nature officer as well as his actions on not only a flight and also testimony that this was not i am going to slam this defendant and i'm going to give him two hundred to six hundred years there was also evidence by the investigator who did the research  should be given to the factual findings made that the standard view includes arm and a showing of actual bias and nexus which defendant has not done in this case for those reasons that no one in particular should no determined was found because of the miller line of cases coming at the times that they did and defending could not show prejudice his says did not violate the th amendment or the proportion or penalties clause of illinois i mean with more subsequent to miller harris has made it very clear that the age of eighteen marks the line between juveniles and adults and our defendant was eighteen and a half at the time that we're filed as early as ten years and in fact defendant has had the opportunity for numerous over thirty parole hearings at which time he is allowed per the guide and guides of the discrepancy made by defendant regarding his opportunity and before the parole board that there is a remedy that's available to him but that's not necessarily this particular forum where we're addressing the have made it clear that mere age and family background that has been presented is not not the end of all he has to show in this particular case under a proportionate penalty challenge that he's alleg that his brain his much much surety was function the cognitive functioning that he had was equivalent to a juvenile of the protections recognized by the number of children at the time of the crime and he doesn't present any evidence of that in fact just even the e p assigned shows that he had a th grade education he did not graduate from th grade because he was arrested while he was in high school at that time he held jobs in fact his evaluations at these jobs showed that he was a more than able capable and recommended employee he hopes he had hopes and dreams and hopes to become a with that said there's a big difference between the person of corrections credit at the time that was being addressed in that case and the parole hearing that's an issue here where this cruellest totally different a hearing is hel subsequently returned the money did not render his interest in the outcome any less acute as defendants suggest he wanted to ensure that he did not lose his judicial post and salary and therefore was motivated want to lose is to dish a post and celery and therefore was motivated to return a verdict where next challenge in the evidentiary rulings by judge wilson it was a bench trial he knew what he was going to do he didn't it didn't matter what the hearing let us show his mental state let us show his family problems his medication and then decide whether or not his sentence of two hundred to six hundred years it's appropriate but it wasn't all that  when the crime was more serious and therefore it doesn't matter and he was never going to get a change of sentence so one thing i will say that every witness in this case so just to sum up i think there is a serious nexus here it's that made up its unique you don't find cases where the judge has stated how much concerned he was about his job and his future and then you have all this publicity against him and here comes this quarter rican eighteen year old kid and he's going to make he's going to make his reputation billeted self in this case and that's what happened and judge wilson and you can tell by the fact that he doesn't justify in any way the twenty thousand six hundred years i mean if you have somebody it's eighteen years old and has no criminal convictions back on that didn't really consider it he didn't hear that the courtroom was full he wanted to police the state's attorney and rehabilitate himself and i respectfully ask in the name of justice because that's what one thousand four hundred and one says if you a statute to achieve justice in the name of justice don't keep this me in prison after forty four years even even if you think well he killed a police officer and