pass it's the application of the law to the facts it brings us my client was charged with that information on august twenty first two thousand and fourteen in october we had a woman area during  investigation and newly discovered information although they weren't able to present to the court and didn't present to the court what the ongoing investigation was we're in any of the newly discovered information we have generated in the matter of what they were allowed to file an amended information which will set women their hearing interestingly as it turns out at that time there were d v d s discovery running from july through november that they had not turned over to prosecutor is we don't want to call a prosecutor our misconduct because that phrase applies to other kinds of activities but you think that there is an enduring animus toward your client or and ineptitude that they're trying to prejudice in this matter time and time and time again there were discovery violations i don't care let's take all is true what is the authority in illinois first of all  dismiss case that's what we call yes but what statutory or supreme court rule thord is there for appealing a non nonprofit even though you objected to it and in your view you had good grounds for objecting  understand i believe i understand that but the fact of the matter is the bond was discharged charges were dismissed my bond restrictions that would normally apply were wrong on my client was free to go the case was over sixteen days later they exact same charges their actions is our in our position and our requests and the score i don't think can be or should be tolerated they knew they couldn't get it continuous they knew the trial court would give them a continuance they had been to that well too many times they announced ready for trial not only did they announce ready for trial basis that they didn't have any witness problems and they said there were going to be no motions in limine a less than a week later they come into court and they say we want to now process because of witness problems and it turns out it wasn't a witness problem it was a do another discovery violation so once again i ask you a question cited a couple of cases  doesn't happen a lot but it put in this situation it happened the way way way too much well so you do this under the the denial or the granting of the now process of whether you do this as a result of the discovery violations i don't believe and i would suggest to you that this type of our ongoing conduct is you mention should not and cannot be tolerated there is no remedy for it if you give them a continuance they got what they wanted they violated discovery  no big deal this is one of these situations i think where you have it in your your in your form to stop this to stop the game playing when you come into court and you announce ready for trial and you know you're not there's a problem how do we distinguish it from woolsey i think when you look at what happened to my client bines discharge you know well you know it was all it was it was over she had no other remedy no other remed and whether again this is a discovery violation origin of use of process for allowing now process it's got to be stopped this is the place to do it this is the case for it i don't like coming here as much as it is you don't like having more cases of this nature but it's some point time somebody has got to stand up and say enough is enough you can't be playing games with people's lives over and over again as again as it's pointed out and i realize i somewhat significant but when you when you have a young doctor in that area medicine trying to establish a practice in a small community and it's getting this fake republish city and all of the things that are that happened somebody's got to step up to the plate and say we're not going to tolerate this anymore i am hopeful that that's what you do i don't want to take up any more of your time i'll be happy to answer all your questions we all on board with us the question is what's the remedy i suggest and i ask that you find that this was too much to ask him suggest that you send it back with directions for of dismissal because there's nothing else to do i guess maybe we can come back on the equal protection of the due process argument within that requires a whole new trial and everything that and all the new expenses and all the publicity and all the prejudice it's going to result in my client and maybe we win or maybe we don't maybe the worst thing that could happen as far as a lot of concern is that we would win that trial in this issue wouldn't be brought up and it keeps going on and on and on again and i think this is an opportunity is all over there isn't any case others very little case law there on this i think this is a perfect case to saying enough is enough discovery violations are serious they can't they can't all disconnected ass how do you appeal in this case in a lot torri nature he read you a quote from people versus will sleep defendant argues that in order dismissing criminal charges through a process a final judgment for purposes of appellate review because it is a judgment which terminates the prosecution at this point that's precisely what the defendant argues in this case the holding for mostly states as follows the order review this claim the defendant's underlying claim is that somehow there was some shenanigans related to speedy trial or discovery issues that is a an issue for supervisory authority  that as a sport well knows only the supreme court retains the only thing that i would add is i feel compelled to defend the state's attorney's office in this case to the extent it's necessary when you review the record in this case record from the march ten hearing one fifty three one sixty two and one sixty six in a challenge to the the defendant's challenge to the state's motion to naleo this case the court concluded and accepted the state's assertion that one of its key witnesses was unavailable and that's the reason they denied it and that and that's the stated reason for the delay reading the record and speaking to the c's tourney's office essentially what the defendant's claim here are the substantive claim below is that not  state's attorney's office was necessarily involved in any shenanigans but the accusation is that law enforcement generally is involved in some sort of shenanigans so in other words they're taking information creating police reports and holding those until later date then turning them over to the state's attorney's office and within three days and i think mr chirac himself explained at the hearing look we don't have any beef with the state's attorney's office they're turning it over in three days that amounts to essentially nothing unfortunately that doesn't have supervisor authority like the supreme court does to address that underlying issue but even if it did this court our position is that you could certainly affirm based on what was presented to the trial court and it's different from mostly in the jus point out that attorney that this is not a very good way to go forward and if there's a problem with them going forward in appropriate way they need  that needs to be resolved for the future that doesn't give mr snarky solace but i'm asking you who is an official of the court and is someone who has a relationship with state's attorneys what would you to would you have a discussion with him about this i would accept you already i will absolutely and there is a previous case where there was this allegation made in the trial court dismissed it with prejudice this is a case that in fact machine act brought up  at the hearing my point in pointing that out to this court is that the trial court is well aware of what the allegations are in this county and what the potential problems are all that was before the judge and this is what the trial judge said  in denying defendant's motion to essentially block the knowledge process i've read the motion the objection actually the information attached to the reading and the we're going to the discretion of the prosecutor well obviously there's issues with this case  sometimes a case in south having a multitude of issues i don't think at this point the prosecution has done anything as far to lose their right to molly cross the case the motion for knowledge process will be granted i believe mr stack you may have a due process argument when they but obviously you're going to have to file that and proceed with that at that point so the trial judge here is aware of what's going on i know that the prosecutors are aware of the issues but the other important thing here and it's sort of collateral to the ultimate outcome in this case but just to assuage any concerns with the court the defendant repeatedly states in the discussion the statement of fa section of his brief in this case that this discovery violation occurred that discovery violation occurred this discovery violation occurred those are legal conclusions there were no such findings made in this case so the judge is aware of what's going on when this case moves forward i don't think that any of the parties certainly mr shaq understands the law in this regard and he will be able to bring it to the court's attention in the for what it's worth category your honor i will most certainly be discussing this case when i return to the office and then once this disposition is issued so that we're all on the same page and if there's nothing else ultimate sanction but that isn't stopping anything the problems continue and the only reason that way these problems are going to continue going i i did say that i do not blame the state's attorney's office per se i know what the doing that and it's obvious from this case they're sitting on the discovery and given it to the state at the last minute or so because they know they don't have to turn it over to the defense counsel the cherry picking discovery and that's got to stop and the only way to stop it is to quit the game playing into stop the game point i'm too old for this i don't need this anymore my clients don't need it anymore if you would would send this back with a direction i would hope that it would stop it and i wouldn't have to come back here i was