these ex parte communications with the trial judge and i know that your honour's of all regret the fact that very briefly this is a shooting outside of a nightclub after midnight and the police show up the he one of those three individuals or any of the law enforcement that they heard shots saw shots or worship and in fact what they were doing was trying to to leave th one spoke with those three individuals at the scene but they also looked at those two automobiles and they didn't see what they didn't testified about was any  they get inside that b m w and they're looking for evidence in the photographs and but they don't see any blood and there's absolutely no evidence presented at the trial that it was intoxicated acting intoxicated and the reason we point that out is well i mean the argument would be well maybe he didn't know you should feel but there is no evidence of intoxication now gates is allowed to leave the scene and there's corroborated by anything the next that where this case picks up then the same officer who was at the scene goes to the hospital and east the state put in the habit instead of a picture of which clothing no blood on clothing no blood on on the car we can account for him for this hour hour and a half and now there is one witness part and the o it to that can and i'm in a minute but at the scene parnell never says one word about us here and shot scene shots or that his buddy gates has been shot  one week later when detective moore goes to parnell's house only then this part now in our view in our estimation changed his attempted murder obviously the act that sort of goes away as he's convicted of the attempted murder but the possession of weapon by a family motorists at most if we both believe party now now for the intented murder either needs to be shooting with the intent to hurt or you don't kill i gate or some type of transferred intent now transferred intent was never argued after trial but let's let's presume that the shooter was trying to shoot par hell or been in the third person but instead shot actually shot gates with it you could use the theory of transferred intent but we don't even know that for certain the only person to even tell us about the direction of the shots is part and that's why parnell's credibility is himself and those arguments were that there was no questioning of aides on these communications and no cross examination of our mail on visibility now we feel that that's relevant because they are now seen the uptown is the entire case of arnold doesn't see the house or testify about that you don't have possession of a weapon by a felon and you certainly don't have the attempted examine our now i'm busy billeted then you might be able to add even more information on whether or not credibility is an issue but maybe even more important is the direction of the shot because if the shots actually work at these three guys direction then you might have a transferred intent period but if they work you don't have transferred in you don't have you have to or it could just be reckless caliber jacket found yet that's not there's no scientific evidence we we said in a brief there's no scientific evidence in the case there's nobody coming can say on the video what we see yeah that's a parnell was to be sentenced on their own case but this detective moore goes out and gets the statement from our nap builds up to the judge this was a bench problem here again goes up to the judge in a social se and banks the judge of the verdict and says that this is an important verdict for the pure police department now if people feed moffitt which is the case we out and argued well boy you can really see how weak this argument is because they don't really have a have a lot we could find a like he's a law on what we do argue is that at it at the bare minimum the appearance of obviously that's not ones probably true but to you it's not the message that you want to communicate to the public how can that not be impropriety defectives impropriety or se the defendant was which charge when he takes over the case that he can't judge the post trial motions based entirely on the transcript now again there's case law on couldn't find  she then not know that this is an important case an important conviction so much so that it is effective in experience detective thought that it was a wise idea to go thank credibility otherwise what you've got is just the basic transcript and this statement that is so prejudicial and in our view it's so bad that you know how have with respect to the reasonable doubt comes in apparently i am not familiar with peoria but apparently there must be some sort of subway or some sort of underground walkway or something that is that is a little looking down at first i thought this was individual direction of three individuals all of a sudden you see the three individuals take off you see the individual with the gun running basically i can tell you almost to the camera he cam teach the evidence that they would have a reasonable doubt the fantasy of gates has consistently testified i don't know shopping that's the best been from day one so you  don't hear but from what you can see and from the way it looks assuming the ends the gun comes up as soon as i'm saying i use the word assume because i know you can hear from the way things are all of a sudden all three see but unless you're really watching it you really hit it almost like it's something that doesn't catch your eye a first but once you notice it it really has you can see the individual come out of nowhere and just office and there's a street or behind  that really doesn't affect the fairness of the trial so again i have said that again i don't know that i don't know because basically it's a no win situation it presents a choice you know that i don't think anybody can relate to could come up with a logical fair answer it's going to take a satisfy the situation a problem he can be fair to both parties in this situation i think that if there was any it's the appearance of impropriety that is on our or third point on appeal and then i met your point out that the new judge who took over as the former state's attorney and state attorneys work with the police department so if you have that i this is that the video yet and in our estimation your gun is when you review the video does not show the face and you will hear no sense and this is why that one hour to hour gap is so important people saying and then you got that one hour or two hour attack there gates is unaccounted for at the scene no complaints that you shot no evidence that he shot and he leaves a couple hours later he certainly had he been shot at that very moment that there would have been some indication he would have said something and so that you know justice it just isn't clear with the case law is said you can you know whether or not someone files a motion to suppress a strategy but we're not arguing we're sane you can still cross examine somebody on the on the photo lineup for example how long did it take are now to identify kumar house when he looked at those six photographs we don't he was never there was no cross examination  in his apartment well we don't even know that you know we did know that there was some testimony about how first you lied in fact even then he changed his story how long did it take him to change his story we don't know that it's not so much that it's to do some cross examination counsel says that well you know whether or not you lawyers choose to do something or so it strategy well we we all get the choice whether we should do something or not when we're defending somebody in court but choosing not to do something which is what was done here