for errors dealing with the admission of the out of court statements of the state's witnesses and the remaining three errors dealing with the admission of wholly irrelevant evidence and improper arguments by the prosecutors the state's only evidence against wholly in the civil trial first because he lacked personal knowledge of the events in his statement which is a requirement for admission under section one fifteen dash ten point one  but in order to be admissible they have to satisfy the requirements of one fifteen that's ten point one and where they don't satisfy those requirements they're inadmissible and this is a statute that was created in derogation of the common love rule against hearsay statements  do not satisfy the personal knowledge requirement that is sort of a basic fundamental requirement of one fifteen dash ten point one and here were the statements that shawn jenkins provided were entirely well absolutely they were offered to show that kendrick butler committed the shooting and that's the substance of what's the matter asserted was that kendrick butler committed the shooting so they're absolutely admitted for their substance and even if they were only admissible for impeachment purposes as we argued in our brief kendricks t v show in jenkins trial testimony didn't do affirmative damage to the state's case and therefore the statements could not come in as impeachment evidence so either you know whether the state's offering them first substantive purposes or impeachment purposes was just a can simply are not admissible and the state argues to answer your question also to state our use that these statements might be an admission but that would simply you know got the entire rule because the rule requires personal knowledge it can't rely on just incriminating statements there's plenty of case law that says we can't rely on you know someone who just overhears the defendant making for making statements that does not satisfy the personal knowledge requirement that leads me into the next argument about the admission of multiple prior statements coming in under section one fifteen dash ten point one that statute by its plain language only relaxes the he city says statement shall not be made miscible and missed the boat by the hearsay rule in the state introduces multiple statements saying virtually the same thing from the same witness those act is prior consistent statement inadmissible in this case we have sean jenkins who provided an oral statement and a handwritten statement in the grand jury statement so during his testimony the state went through all those statements and then proceeded to introduce evidence of the oral statement the handwritten statement in the grand jury statement again with terming brown we have a videotape statement handwritten statement and a grand jury statement the state the same thing went through each of those both during eric roberts his testimony and then the statement through them again with the law enforcement officials and when the state introduces multiple statements under one fifteen dash ten point one it acts exactly like a prior consistent statement and case law is clear that those are not allowed because they have an improper bolstering affect it hence the credibility of those prior statements and one fifteen dash ten point one shirt the evidence was closely balanced because the only evidence tying kendrick butler to the shooting were the three statements we can't prove the three witnesses all of whom recanted a trial and those witnesses were all convicted felons two of which were under investigation themselves and so certainly had a motive to assist the police and get harvesting three handed a trial and error of quite you know questionable credibility and there's no physical evidence tying kendrick butler to this crime so all we have again are these out of court statements and that credibility contest and those are the sorts of cases where the supreme court has made clear the evidence is close the balance for it comes down to a matter of credibility and here it was an issue of whether or not he's out of court statements many of which contained in saying is they can't introduce every single one of those prior statements because when you introduce every single one it trial has an improper bolstering it acted henson's their credibility the state in fact is even better off on the other hand doesn't  put that statement in front of the jury what it does not contemplate is that the state exploit it by introducing every single statement ever made to law enforcement and therefore bolstering the credibility of those statements  that exactly the reason that we have the rule against our consistent statements is that there's an improper bolstering effect in the jury picks up on that and gives them credibility beyond what they should have so are you saying all these statements were consistent or in said is that you're talking about we are the first the johnson is wrongly decided because the way they look at it is that you're looking at inconsistent statements and you measure it all against the trial testimony argument is that you w the all of the statements come in as substantive evidence there's no reason to treat them any different from the trial testimony which also comes in a substantive out so those prior inconsistent statements are consistent with one another and would come in and be a man and testify and that each of his prior statements constituted the truth and the prosecutor used a series of leading questions to her dark work well in her testified this conversation because it violates the witness advocate rule that oh prevents the prosecutor from inserting his or her own version of the facts his or her own credibility determinations into the proceedings because it's an entirely collateral matter it's terribly relevant whether tremaine said that he would be a man and come in and testify and whether or not those other statements were the truth the state was already introducing those statements substantive evidence getting him go in testimony that she talked to him and that he would be a man and that those statements were the truth simply added nothing to the case here the only purpose for those statements  hendrik because it allows in evidence of a motive that he can't sort of a ambiguous motive that he can't cross examine about that's not very specific and do we know do we know that  we don't know the particular weight but again when all we have are these out of court statements that are implicating and very you know we can assume that they must have been given a lot of weight and objected to at trial so the realm under which this court can examine these issues is either under the van of cleaner or under the rubric of ineffective assistance of counsel and regardless of which of those two were examining supreme court has been very clear that in cases like this if they can be disposed of on the prejudiced pronk that they should be and that in this case this court can in fact do that because if you look at what we have here at the end of the day even if you take out every piece of evidence that the defendant is objecting to what this court still has before this are properly admitted prior inconsistent statements which identify the defendant as the shooter which contain a confession by the defendant an eyewitness identifications and that's more than enough to sustain a conviction in this case but turning to defendant substantive issues individually first of all the defendant talks about the admission of this they are admissible under one fifteen dash ten but moreover they're sort of taken out of the box of the hearsay because more importantly they're admissible as admissions by a party opponent and the law is clear that because they are statements by the defendant who is a party in this case and he is admitting his basically his guilt for the offense they of the hearsay rule and in other cases that are cited in our brief the courts have stated that each and every statement is admissible that it's not barred by the hearsay rule because it is an admission by a party opponent and that's i'm saying the double hearsay is not an issue because the hearsay rule does not exclude admissions by party opponents but even if we look at this under the realm of the hearsay rule and we look at it under one fifteen ten point one the statements are still admissible because the mr jenkins had personal knowledge in this case in order to establish that an individual has personal knowledge well i don't believe that that is what the case law requires i would i'm sorry i i believe that what the case law requires is that you actually perceive the event that is the subject of the state and in this case the event is the shooting and the requirement is not that you are an eye witness and that you have the knowledge that the defendant is the shooter  experience it with your own senses in this case hearing the shooting being aware that there was a shooting that it took place and that he was in fear enough that he left the area  so because of that our position is that the two statements in which jenkins recounts the conversations that he had with the defendant are admissible under one fifteen  a conversation that jenkins overhears between defendant and an individual named ken on the telephone in which the defendant asks this individual to get rid of the gun clearly this statement does not describe  shooting the event and as such it is admissible because what the case law says is that if the statement consists of what a witness heard and what the witness heard does not marry or describe an event then it can also satisfy the personal knowledge requirement so in this case because the the last statement here is describing a future event and not the past event that being the shooting that statement is also admissible under one fifteen ten point one moving on to the second issue raised by defendant which is the admission of the prior inconsistent statements there are two appellate court cases decided by this court which are very clear that the people versus johnson people versus harvey which state that we measure consistency against trial testimony in this case the statements that were admitted were clearly prior inconsistent statements because they were inconsistent with his trial testimony and because they were prior inconsistent statements the multiple statements were all admissible because there is no limitation set forth for the admission of these prior inconsistent statements and there is no  there's no bolstering in this case and we have to take it into perspective and think about what happened here the the state's witnesses came into court before the jury they took an oath to tell the truth they sat on that stand and they not only denied identifying defendant as the shooter they stated that they fabricated their prior grand jury testimony that the assistant state's attorneys in this case made up the handwritten statements and told them to sign they denied speaking to the detectives and the impact that that had on the jury can't be minimized in this case we're practitioners of law we've seen cases like this before we know that in these gang cases the witnesses flip they come in they deny their prior statements they deny seeing anything and these statements come in under one fifteen ten point one that's typically how this occurs but these jurors this could be the first time that there have been acquainted with cases like this they may not be aware that this is is commonplace and so to them a witness coming in and testifying i didn't say that before that's not my statement no i made that up that is damaging testimony and the only way that that can be cured  showing that on prior occasions that this witness made statements identifying this defendant and then on every other occasion that he's had to speak to the police to speak to detectives to assistant state's attorneys he's been consistent  well it's not too many in this case and one because in the magic number i'm not quite sure and i guess that would be a decision for the legislature who chose not to write a limitation into all substantially they were the same so you're those three similar statements are not well especially when you look at the type of statements that they are it it kind of explains why it's important that they all come in you have grand jury testimony which shows that at a prior time this witness went into a courtroom under oath swore to tell the truth and identified and made these statements you have a handwritten statement which shows that he sat down with someone had a conversation had a chance to review that statement and said this is the truth i'm signing this you have an oral statement which would take it you know that's taken the first time you have a chance to speak detectives which shows the first time that this individual had a chance to speak to the police officers this is what he told them so while substantively they are the same it it's it shows that he made these statements under different circumstances sometimes police were present sometimes they were not sometimes an assistan this case as the as you noted just telling him this is similar to any other impeachment of a witness that we would see and there is a specific procedure that set forth for the questioning of witnesses for the purposes of impeachment and that's what was followed in this case you specifically ask the witness the question in question form the statement that was made by the witness in this case and that's exactly what the process did hear the prosecutor was not testifying the prosecutor did not offer her own opinions of the witness or try to offer testimony in this case this case is measurably different from the case that cited by defendant which is people versus blue which talks about the witness advocate rule in that case the prosecutors were actually injecting their own opinions in factual statements in appropriately into their actual questions and objections and that's not what occurred here we've laid out  testimony in this case and it's clear that the prosecutor in this case is merely asking the law clerk did did mr brown say this did mr brown say this and the clerk is responding appropriately move well if you look at these at the claims individually in terms of determining whether there is prejudice for example jenkins or on handwritten statements he says those were improperly admitted that was a of claim well that exact same testimony as just conner's asked me came in through the grand jury statements of mr jenkins so the fact that the oral and that he's arguing the oral and handwritten statements were improperly admitted the same testimony came in through the grand jury testimony he says that portions of tremaine brown's testimony were improperly admitted because they raised evidence that he had a motive that same evidence of a motive came in through jenkins grand jury testimony he tells jenkins that he shot into that car because i thought those were the guys who jumped me like a little while back that's the exact same information that comes in through  we started our argument by telling this court that if you take out every piece of objected to testimony in this case you still have the same information coming in through other ways you have the confession of defendant which courts have reiterated again and again is the most important piece of evidence that can be presented you have eyewitness testimony identifying defendant as the shooter so defendant simply cannot demonstrate prejudice in this case you in measuring the prejudice to address counsel's point we don't simply just take out the evidence but we look at how that evidence affected the jury and in this case the state's entire case consisted of the out of court statements of these three witnesses who recanted a trial that's all the state really had time kendrick butler to this crime and the state's entire case the trial was about bolstering the credibility of those statements and that's where the taking those grand jury statements and then bowstring them showing look they're credible as counsel said we need to show that on every prior occasion they said the same thing and that's exactly why we don't allow prior consistent statements the state we're not at all time the hands of the prosecutors here one fifteen dash from point one gives them the opportunity to put that in front of the jury and get it in as substantive evidence and basic conviction based solely on that so we're certainly not tying the hands of the prosecutors here but we are saying is that you should be able to exploit that rule by giving it every single prior statement ever made it's the minute you know you three witnesses are saying on these prior of the jury counsel's own argument seems to suggest the point that i'm trying to make is that they're trying to exploit this rule by saying look in every prior occasion they said this you know he talked to the detective he talked to the state's attorney you talk to the grand jury look at how credible our witnesses he said it are all these prior occasions it's exactly why we don't allow prior consistent statements and these are all coming in a substantive evidence and so this has the improper bolstering effect so you're saying  damage but then you have the state could have gotten in the grand jury testimony and that would have served the purpose of one fifteen dash ten point one of allowing the state to present their case with turncoat witnesses that's exactly what one fifteen t point one is for and that would serve their purpose and again the state's entire case was about bolstering these statements and with in these statements there is evidence here's the evidence of motives butler's confession coming in through straw in jenkins who wasn't even at this event and as we know confessions are powerful evidence on the jury so when you have this confession again being bolstered over and over again