good morning and welcome to all of you here today the opening of the march public oral argument argument docket on march tuesday march twelfth two thousand and thirteen on the first page of the call of doctors agenda number one and i represented the people the center of illinois in this case then some cases before this court because the trial court found the juvenile court acts provision statute was unconstitutional because they required the state's attorney to consent to a continuance under supervision under supervision you understood preserve the delicate balance between the lead should legislatures right to enact laws and accord studi to strike unconstitutional laws this court has cautioned lower courts not to therefore has adopted this court's construction and this case your honour's by disregarding the doctrines of standing in starry decisis the trial court failed to exercise the same restraint that this court mandated and exercise itself environment casie and stead the court found the supervision statute was unconstitutional even though it had no impact on respondents case even if this court were to affirm the trial court's unconstitutionality it continues an under supervision to was to the trial proceedings how could it be in couldn't be referring to the prejudice before this court because the record was silent on an objection by the state which was challenged if if we s eligible for court supervision and the trial court offers are wishes police and the state objects aren't we in the in the trial court then says it's unconstitutional are we back here again at the at that point in hear her claims are based on pure speculation and conjecture but she's being prevented from raising the issue of the constitutionality because counsel didn't realize the timing of when to request continuance on her super record is silent on that well what the record shows is that she was offered a continuous under supervision prior trial and she rejected it we don't know the discussions in detail in between the record is silent on that well we do know is that she rejected supervision she maintained her innocence she went to trial and an at that and it proceeded to judgment right well also what we need is an is meeting objection below by the state we don't supervision we're not even sure if it was for a continuance under supervision or the provision was only after the trial court expressed his willingness to find the current statue unconstitutional that the feds cut that defense counsel file where it has already been a binding and church so i guess the point of supervision is moot so there's already been in finding you can't go back and erase it and what's important is the trial court also  acknowledged the fact that this was the basis of the state's objection on page one twenty five of the record and i quote the trial court stated your office is opposed to the order because of the statute i believe that's the reason they're opposing it because stand no your honor because what the reason to respond like fanny is because the time has passed for a continuous under super under supervision and therefore what prevents the issuance of a continuous under supervision in this a merit to these claims she can establish the respondent wants this court to believe that all the sudden after the evidence was presented the respondent changed my changed positions as well as the state change positions there's absolutely no indication  the state after hearing the evidence responded just that hey i've heard the evidence i take responsibility could you continue the case worse under supervision there is no evidence of the state would have objected the only evidence here for the stages is it true that you've asked for extensions of time in i may have but i've also had quite a few cases in this in this court as well as as well as the public argument in the case to distinguish veronica c from what happened in this case with respect to the fact that supervision had already been granted so it was not a speculative speculative prospect as it was in veronica c and i would just stand on the briefs on that but i also believe that veronica c was incorrectly decided and this court should we consider veronica see the cross relief is that our trial counsel was certainly ineffective in asking for supervision at the wrong time because he failed to understand the correct operation the supervision statute and the state at trial also saat also did not recognize the correct operation the supervision statute and so i would ask the court to reach the constitutional merits based upon the fact that trial counsel didn't ask for it the right time i believe just as heis pinpointed the reason why i would have to be back here again for that very reason there's different if we disagree with that argument i'm just trying to opportunity really to appeal so there isn't anything in the appellate court to send it back for and so if we agreed with the whole ineffective assistance but still think there's a standing problem then what's the via that that record does not reflect the state would have objected the state would have objected and then you have to determine whether there was prejudice and the only way you can determine prejudice is determine whether the statute is on constitution there's the case then what import is there that the defendant turned down the offer of supervision in the first instance i don't think that is any important all the defendant has a right to take her case to trial and to submit her case to the submit the state to the rigors of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and factually this was a very very close case this is the slapping fight between two teenage girls in a high school over a facebook post it was a mutual combat in who struck who  first this is a perv this was a case that danielle deserved to take a trial and have the state prove its case and i think that a construction of the juvenile supervision statute which i believe ron can see of the way that the process works of erotica sees interpretation that the judge has to stop before i bring the word guilty and the defense attorney has to ask for supervision a disposition a sentence as in a fact at the same time that they're arguing vigorously for their client's innocence i believe that's kind of an unworkable and counter intuitive construction of the supervision  you ask for the state objects you want to come back but we've got very little already her legal briefs will be out in march when we don't have a standing issue and you may get the answer america yes but not in the scriptures i agree that's probably those of the two things that can happen but i would still not like to give up on this court reconsidering veronica c because i think that it's a counterintuitive construction of the supervision statute and it's goes against general precepts of criminal law that you don't prejudge a case that in a jury context the jury's not even supposed to consider the disposition during the guilt phase at all but then you have to go around the plain language of the statute the words written well i think the statute has changed over time that the statute now says that the judge can consider supervision after hearing the abbot and sit trial and i think that it where it started from the supervision statute started from in  of not allowing supervision at all if there was if the only supervision was available before proceeding to findings and as you to cation and then that has changed over time to allow the trial court to allow juvenile court judges to impose supervision in their discretion i think that's also in harmony with the overall overarching theme of the juvenile court act of giving judges broad discretion to fashion appropriate remedies to rehabilitate minors which then the offense czerny would file this motion to vacate was completely made up motion no support in juvenile court act at all and then the judge would consider continue the case for a while and if the presumably the miners stayed out of trouble the judge would simply vacate the find also in veronica see seized on this section two of the statute where it says that if the parties if the parties do not consent to supervision actually got to get the right words here  negate the language in section one which is that the judge can consider a supervision after hearing the evidence after hearing the evidence at trial and i believe that the progressions of the juvenile supervision statute from after hearing from no pretrial consideration of supervision all he had or no post consideration of supervision at all had to do a pretrial to consider the evidence a trial the don't note in the minutes what the finding is which sounds a lot like veronica see this what what is the judge say that there is a point beyond which the judge cannot return at the others the words guilty he or she utters the words guilty which i believe is the crux of what veronica c hol s to removing that language altogether in one nine hundred ninety of before the noting in the minutes and significantly in the other juvenile supervision statutes and therefore i address in the other abused neglected minors minors in need of said that they so wanted to separate the dispositional phase from the adjudication phase and the quoting from the representative churchill the purpose is to segregate the questions of criminal guilt in the proper disposition of a minor and it is more fair to the minor that the determination of whether he should be awarded the court he made at a separate dispositional hearing what does that mean that means you want to single fine single focus single minded fact finder figuring out the facts of the case whether there is guilt and then moving on to whether what the proper disposition should be and i believe that this is a more natural and intuitive way that a criminal process and a criminal judge operates hear the evidence make a determination and then move to the disposition not interrupt the thought process and say well i think i want to impose supervision but i can't utter the words guilty or not interrupt the crucial role that defense closing argument plays of having the defense a wink wink nod nod i know you're going to find him guilty but i'm arguing for innocence of the same time because so consider nd also as a practical point about as a practical point about a judge bringing up that considering supervision is the role that the social investigation plays in the judges in informing juvenile court judges and what to do with particular minor and social investigations that the social is the adult is the juvenile equivalent of a pretrial investing or pre sentencing investigation they don't have pretrial investigations in th court they have this social that's done after there's been a finding in the social is where the minors full history and meeting with the probation officer and probation officers recommendation and what are the circumstances individual circumstances of this minor are flushed out the judge doesn't know that at the beginning of the file at the beginning of the findings stage or just before the judge might say well i want to consider supervision here at that point all the judge knows about is the facts of the case place came in that way as many do well but i think that i think that that kind of you know are you penalizing a juvenile on their decision to take the case to trial by it's construct of the art it's what i'm talking about and hoping i know it's only less than three years ago as a seven nothing decision that respectfully i think that you need to reconsider it in the light of the arguments i've made the legislative history a nd failing that obviously the trial attorney was ineffective in failing to understand the clarity of the sequence of the juvenile supervision statute as articulated in veronica c he asked for not just some sort of supervision it was very clear in the record and i know you have my read brief there which you just got last night actually there was a mailing problem but in there i clearly who go through the record of where the state both objects the supervision the state's actual argument against supervision and the trial counsel's manifest misunderstanding of the way the supervisions that it operated her veronica see and the fact he was asking for supervision under six fifteen which which certainly certainly he wants and the state objected supervision at trial just because veronica took her case to trial it wasn't because that they had some clairvoyant understanding of for onic a  because for odyssey was decided two months after the proceedings proceedings in this case and there wasn't anything to draw on from prior presidents of this court i j n was not was a case in which supervision was granted and then the minor wanted to appeal and the issue there was was this a final order and if you read j n i believe that a proper interpretation of that is that supervision was allowed after a trial progression of the juvenile supervision statute i just make one quick point about the juvenile supervision session in general how it's constructed is it section one of the juvenile supervision statute is the is the limits on judicial authority and section two or the seventy three and one nine hundred ninety he that's where that has changed is that section one section two is the limits on the parties but i believe that the supervision statute has changed with respect to judicial authority  constitutionality or danielle's arguments concerning why this supervision statute is unconstitutional and state veto and supporting the trial court's findings are on rebutted in this court because the state ever responded to whether the statute is constitutional so this court should suit affirm the decision of the circuit court finding the statute unconstitutional or in the alternative find the trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request it and remand for further proceedings legislative history and basically says the court passably did that in a series of modifications beginning from nineteen eighty four to one thousand nine hundred one however as explained in the people's reply  none of those modifications are amendments whether you look at them individually or collectively supports respondents interpretation i don't deny they and they certainly do not provide a basis to overturn brown to see and this other