incarcerated his mother in chicago who he had not seen or caught in contact with for two years he told the court services officer that he had no family that he could depend upon and that was certainly evidenced by the record here were no protections of the juvenile court act which contemplate a concerned adult present and active in the proceedings the actualities a concerned adult with the assessment with helping to assist in the assessment and treatment of the help ensure that there is someone present who has the minors or the respondents best interest in mind so the new provisions were complied with is that correct yes they are here and were notified is there responsible for the best interest of the child residence and are there provisions in the act they're required to work to appoint a guardian ad litem in the absence of the appearance of any parent the statute requires says minors best interests are being looked after which you agree that it's not the court's outlook asian these cases know there is no case on point regarding and the minor was represented by counsel which i realize that's the same as defense counsel is expressed representation and the role of the g l is best interest representation there are often there are likely numerous situations where a an attorney would not be able to request the g a o or ask their one be appointed for fear that it would go against his client's express interest or his the confidentiality of those communications and here the trial court or the beginning of every perceiving noted that there was no one there for the assessing the circumstances and determining what procedures and dispositions are in the best interest of the mind the g a o then reports to the parties and the court and in this case a g l could very it's quite possible that a g l in meeting with the us would deter would have determined that mandatory incarceration was not the appropriate disposition and possibly have convinced the state to change  instrument to make a period of incarceration not mandatory this corps has explicitly recognized the importance of vital importance of a concerned adult in this would not be a burden on the trial and doing research for this issue in this case i came upon only one case and that was marcus w where the respondent had no concern to the presence and many of the other cases that reversed for lack of notice another parent was present except her but both parents were not nervous markets the view was the only case that i have found where the minor or the responded not had anyone representing this best it would only be in the rear currents were g l would need to be appointed and your honor just for white regarding your question regarding the statute there's also a provision in the juvenile court act which requires that the  had no one advocating for him in his best interests it was incumbent upon the trial court to appoint someone that would have only had his best interests in mind so that your position that due to the fact that is to be construed liberally the court was obligated to point a guardian ad litem even though the statute is does not require that that in conjunction with the abuse and neglect present in if not then just appointed g l i believe both situations will require little time likely either the legislature or the court will since the legislature has not acted and the juvenile court act is full of references to have making sure that all recent minors who responded have a considerable that that someone should be president made available who would would not be a burden on the court whatsoever but i fully dog when in minor has no one else the only resolution is to ensure that the trial court be required to appoint a g l in these rare situation the state talked about a incident at an undisclosed location the the prejudice that w m suffered by having the evidence that minute of shonda wright's  and none of that was presented to the right on the witness stand and this warning race of talk about the policy reasons behind requiring that which is to hear the witness and defense counsel an opportunity to possibly explain away those inconsistency as i noted in my brief if it's possible that china right if he had been presented with the statements especially the one where he said that w put his phone against the back of mr makki snapped it about twenty minutes prior it was the detective who first suggested did w n put his phone against  if he had been presented with that statement on the state and been given an a or given an opportunity to explain away as it consistencies that may very well have been one of his reasons that this was such this answer was suggested to me according to grayson it undermines the fundamental fairness of the defense to allow the sorts of statements then without properly laying the foundation the if he witness an opportunity to explain his side of things because if you get adequately explain yes i made that statement but here is why i mean that's not only do you have an explanation as to the consistencies but that by the piece of evidence would not have been admitted and that recorded statement was what the prosecutor so the state within reach back to the video as necessary to demonstrate the inconsistent statement or if there are really very important statements here that the state obviously wanted to get across which was that he was asked about it and said an undisclosed location and that he may have seen that he saw wm that day there was nothing about a vehicle nothing about mr makki nothing about the bone against the base of his neck and without that  it nor counsel ever asked for a parent or concerned the belt be present at any point in the proceedings below there were never any objections by counsel or any specific mention of appointing a jail by party below so it's football language of section five that six ten one states quote the court may appoint a guardian ad litum for the minor whenever it finds that it is otherwise in the minors interest to do so the main thrust section sixty one i would submit is a conflict of interest which is i would probably presume why a it's more likely that a in a marriage dissolution cases the g a o must be appointed because there the possibility of a conflict of interest is clearly greater in those cases in a criminal case it's hard to imagine what inconsistent  principles are or interests they jail would have from counsel in this case in this case specifically is a bad one to first hold the may in this statute says course carn construction may means the legislature intended this section to be permissive the opposite would be mandatory and that were pushed out to make this may i shall say up astounding in this particular case the fact of this case in particular is a bad want to do that with and again it would be the first case to so whole responded with eighteen and nineteen years old during the proceedings he had an extensive criminal history this wasn't a scare a child thrown into the courtroom for the first time this was an eighteen and nineteen year old basically an adult who had been in terminal juvenile courtrooms multiple times in the past have been by j j three times in the past there was no conflict of interest in this case which again was the main thrust of section six him one there's not even an argument there was a conflict of interest here and two any of this would have been on the court's own there was nothing there was no indication by any the jail was even wanted or needed in this case so this case in particular is a bad one to hold but the actual discretionary the court may appoint a guardian ad litum actually means that the court must appoint guardian ad litum clearly that this doesn't rise to the level of plain or if nowhere heard at all as for respondants argument about his father being there for the father was incarcerated there is no statutory authority to require the court to order an incarcerated parent to attend their child's criminal juvenile proceedings there's simply no stashed or e authority to require that and again this would have been on the court's own motion there was no evidence i mean this is again is a particularly bad case because upon had no relationship with this father at all the father was incarcerated for most of the respondents life and it's unclear whether wanted a man that he doesn't know to even show up in court sit behind him when he's facing an armed robbery charge so clearly that was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to fail on its own potion to order without any statutory authority and incarcerated parent to the proceedings as for the video recording of the prior inconsistent statement again this is the high standard of use of abuse of discretion the trial court in this case specifically  that the witnesses statements were inconsistent which is trial that's why it's recorded video wasn't consistent with this trial testimony which majella it seems to me this is the most difficult part of the appeal for you to overcome  you seem to argue that his soon as a question is asked the calls for the of the defendant to either acknowledge the interview took place or it didn't if the defendant says he can't recall or denies the interview took place at that point everything can come in under the statute under one fifteen dash ten point one as substantive  of to admit the entire two hour interview as substantive evidence i mean there's there scales to everything what i believe we have a lot more than that in this case but you don't have specific questions that opposing counsel has specific questions of whether this guy was even at the gas station where the armed robbery took place but is that a stabbing not a crime occurred and that he committed the crime then we have a question did you see respondent that day he said no it was it's not even possible that i saw responded that day i mean then it seems absurd to make trial the state then ask questions about what respondent did that day if where you want him to teach the way it's right pro ok so it's pretty fundamental when it comes to impeachment that you have to confront the witness with the prior inconsistent state  a stablish of from the witness that either he denies having made that specific statement or has no recollection of having made that specific statement and it has to go down the line  specific statement after specific statement can't just ask a question you know you recall giving an interview and in response the defendant says no and you get a two hour interview being  substantive evidence so do you have a case that says you don't have to confront the witness with each specific statement and ordered to have it it made it is substantive evidence  would i don't have a case specific lead on point like that but there's no case that says the opposite that grayson is the grayson is a great group a stark contrast to the case like you said in this case if we were going to take what grayson did it would be the state asking mr wright did you give this interview is that you in the interview and he says yes and that's it first of all it's not even just a statement that's what happened in greece and they want to get a nine one one on your nine one one call they asked them to quote did you make a nine one one call is this your voice on them i will grayson was about the fact that the individual that they were trying to get to inconsistent statements and against indicated that well i don't know that my nose was broken broken during this whole to cation and they were trying to get it back and he had told the police that his brother broke his nose so there was a definite be inconsistent statement so my question to you is in this case was the witness confronted with the inconsistent statement the allege an inconsistent statement yes how so in didn't remember the armed robbery at all that those are those are inconsistent enough to establish but this was i mean the only it was a two hour video with the only political part of this video when you're talking about inconsistent statements i think it's it's belongs in the department of redundancy department to make him ask questions regarding well responded that day when he stated it wasn't even anything about this interview and unable to recollect anything about the incident which she was a codefendant on the armed robbery unable to recollect seeing responding at all that  the state had completed its case in chief and prior to arresting offered the two hour video into evidence i think or it could have been after redirect of this witness but the witness  stand with that statement he goes on to say one of the important reasons for the retirement that a witness be confronted with is allegedly iron and statement then consistent statement while still on the witness stand is to provide the opposing party with the opportunity to ask the witness to explain or clarify the inconsistent statement and then grayson if the said when a witness is not confronted with his prior inconsistent statement as occurred here when jesse was not confronted with the statement he made in the recording of his nine one one call the opposing party is deprived of the opportunity to ask the witness to explain the inconsistency if he can't hear in this case you'll acknowledge that there was no seeing respondent that day why do you remember those questions could have been asked on cross examination of this witness that's that's what grayson is getting at in greece and there were only two questions asked and then later they moved to admit this video and there was no explain the system it had been played yet they haven't been offered no but it is denial of the of what he said in the video was already before the court and direct examination but isn't the state the line who is required to say didn't you say when you were interviewed by the police that the defendant placed his cell phone to the neck the victim that's not a question from defense counsel that's a question from the state when they're says he doesn't remember seeing responded at all that day how why what what's the point of asking superfluous questions about what respondent did that because he might be confused about the day of the question was to say the question is  you recall giving a statement on october the tenth two thousand and fourteen and the witness says no under your theory then everything that followed in that interview could come in a substantive evid even though the witness is thinking it wasn't october the tenth that was actually october the fifth so he could explain that he could explain that statement if he was still on the witness stand if you  confronted with the specific questions that would jog his memory oh so doubt was actually on october the tenth ok i now recall that that was the correct date yes i recall getting that interview i would argue it's not my theory that's very soon there needs to be more than just say denying that denying this that the interview took place luckily in this case there was more than that if you talk about the specifics of where you went that day that you didn't go anywhere  remember going anywhere talk about the specifics of did you see respondent that day no i didn't that's not possible at the same respondent that day no i don't remember an incident that happened at the gas station i mean that that is enough to enter a prior inconsistent statement specifically about respondent doing an armed robbery at the gas station seems to me and i agree with you that this case doesn't involve just simply at the nile or general statement that i don't recall giving the interview there were additional questions that would make it seem more implausible that this fellow would come around  and acknowledge having given that interview to later on but i don't see anything in the case law that says that there is this hybrid type case that rid leaves of the proponent of the evidence from and he was he was he was put to cross examination regarding his on a bit inability to recollect seeing respondent that day going to a gas station or giving an interview i think it has to relate to the statement you're state just didn't kill far enough its questions were too general it would not be burdensome for the state to simply ask a few more specific questions to make sure that the witness while he's on the stand is confronted with those consisten or should be relax it's quite possible that by asking for the g a o that defense counsel would be violated some sort of confidential nature between he and his individuals on the recording that that identification was also suggested the witness in that case had been brought down to the police station shown a video few days after he was told this is the quick easy gas station where it happened pick out where who these people were he was not given a lineup he was not given a photo ray he was and because of that this identification was certainly tainted by the fact that he is what happens is where it happened this is when i pick out the people involved and if you look at shawn go right and you're on his that's probably why the state did not rely on the during closing arguments that it almost exclusively rely on shandong rights recorded interview repeated references to his discussion about how wm got was there got into the car put his found the back of the of mr makki snack and said give me all of your stuff and according to greece and that is that not go far enough and if you look to the influence of that statement hat on the