this case involves whether the sexually dangerous person is constitutional as applied to the defense the issue as to the constitutionality whether or not at least reports relied upon by psychiatrists can be admitted into evidence or it doesn't violate was convicted by a privy council and sentenced to death that gave rise in english common law to the confrontation which we adopted our place reports admissible in evidence or do they violate the confrontational clause and by mr bowden evidence the psychiatrists each and every one i believe you know  part of the basis for an expert's opinion and the expert to testify about what those matter showed for the limited purpose of explaining the expert's opinion illinois supreme court unanimous evidence of the alleged crimes from committed that instruction was not white not you would have been entitled to it had your s that i i would have been in  to give the instruction this had to be considered as truth but throughout the trial op every time the psychiatrist testified most motion was made objection was made to file their t conclusion of this small part of the police strike and philosophically can you be convicted of something where you don't have the right to confront conclusions and the nature of it is not contrary to the confrontation clause which deals only with the program bishopric it's evidence to say evidence offered to prove the truth or raleigh would agree that they could not yes i would say yes your honor we're asking for a black letter box are hearsay police it's and i'm not b this country there's always defended the rights of an individual to be tried by due process and faces if you and you can't face  victim nor a police officer when a psychiatrist says this   except for the testimony that i am going to suggest to you that he is going to get ramsey and i think that the commit crimes in the future is so how this goes to the bottom lives are said yes this is ok that i have experts testify to matters that they generally rely upon the feel even though that material might not otherwise be admissible  and on the side of you the side of the illinois supreme court decision williams noting affirm and then just go on if there were no conviction in this case at all  prosecutor put on evidence or reports of six seven eight of these offenses occurring and the psychiatry's testified in detail about the police report could we have a different result you could have a different result if the ex first testimony as to the purchase of the report was the evidence as to the price but isn't it the most component to it when he meets these criteria but then they go on and say when i read the police report you know the blitzing aspect of it and beyond that the permissible and what we have here is we do have the proof of the crimes through the to certify copies of his two convictions for sexual offenses so i believe they're both  and not from pierce oh why not put on those two convictions and the police report for the first two which then are not it gets it least clear that they're not being used  just not at all quite scase with respect to the question of proof you know reasonable doubt the lack the experts inability to give a percentage to the police and supplications are not offered for the truth that is so prejudicial to tell the jury that five sexual acts are being offered all police reports double hearsay off the meds and then the police reports reflecting with the victim's rights this has that if the defendant the opportunity to confront the