on three of those issues the first being that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that the court erred in denying his cause trial motion and that the unreliable line of evidence was inadmissible because it was illegally obtained in violation of the eavesdropping statute whether i'm prepared to answer any questions on the other issues in this case no one ever identify the shooter or shooters by sight no physical evidence was presented connecting a suspect to the under the hood of the car in which he was a passenger but it was nine days after the shooting and there are there were no prints on the recovered from the gun and the car that he was a passenger in was not on the state's suspect never was never connected to the getaway car which was a green sedan was never connected to the second on good known gunmen or to the driver of the getaway car and he was never connected to brandon bauer whom the victim's thought may have been responsible for the attack the main evidence presented at the trial were two unreliable voice identifications derived from a sham voice lineup the a sham voice lineup the circumstances surrounding the lineup and the events leading up to the lineup suggest or illustrate the result on reliability  all four witnesses to the shooting wrong new dish out to young from the neighborhood did not tell the police on the night of the shooting that they knew who the shooter was or recognized his voice in fact three of the four witnesses specifically told the police no we shooting and asked about willie's well being he had heard that he was in the hospital and asked about him you may know threats he made no innuendo he just said to bobby you know tell your cousin i came by asking about willie know he was in the witnesses said that they had seen him driving around in the neighborhood and in that black toyota but again that toyota was never directly connected to the crime  and the fact that he came by the day after was you know no testimony other than his words that were completely innocuous about you know asking about how willie was doing he had heard that he was in the hospital  a black mask and black clothing well the braids facts never came out until the actual day of the trial so none of the witnesses in any of the air interviews before the trial mentioned that either of the shooters had braids and again we don't even know how many shooters there worse the one witness said that there were two shooters another said that there was only one what difference would it make it goes to their credibility it goes to how they could remember the facts how could they have remembered the shooter's voice if they never actually had a conversation was just too young he knew him from the neighborhood and he the only time he ever heard him speak was ten to twenty times around the neighborhood talking to other people on the street from several feet away  well i'm sorry i don't remember the name of the case but i believe that in that case the it was the same day of the shooting and the cashier spoke to the defendant who had come in earlier that day had communicated one on one had seen his you know his eyewitness identification but they're easily apply to this situation you know that the scene was chaotic kenyatta said that his degree of attention was on the safety of his friends people were jumping out of windows sorry their identifications in court were a result of the line of procedure that was conducted after this was unusual voice lineup that was conducted says he's all right everybody shows that the witnesses were talking to one another about who could have been behind the shooting rumors were being spread on the street about who might have been responsible then when he hears that shante gets arrested in harvey and know we don't know who the shooter was immediately after the shooting and the twelve days are important because within those twelve days can ya tells martin that he thought the shooter was shot too young after body tells them that he came by asking about willie and the seed was planted that you know maybe everybody got together and started thinking yeah that could be just how do you run and then they convinced themselves  who was present that they were playing video games that they were smoking marijuana who was going to leave to go buy snacks and when the shooter came in he remembered details about being behind james perkins as he was firing a weapon towards the shooters and that they jumped out the window he remembered all those details and yet he failed to mention when questioned by the police that is the key component which was yes i know who the shooter is  you were trying to get some others here i believe after a certain point they they asked the police to leave yes but until then the police were able to get a description of the events that occurred from willie  that is correct but can you add martin's post trial testimony speaks of the reliability of both voice identifications because he explains post trial that the witnesses collaborated that they were prepped before they were before they testify at a trial so that all their garcia's testimony that says they raised their hands at the same time the shot a young was speaking but all the other five participants were also speaking at the same time it was his conclusion and not surprisingly because he knew who the backdrop those witnesses were raising their hands but again it's not certain whose voice they were actually identifying it was a mistake garcia's opinion that the recantation a testimony of the motion for  truthful that he feels badly for years if under three years at the event he pointed a finger at somebody who he knew from the neighborhood shaunie feels badly about it that is very common among eyewitnesses and that's an underlying reason why course disavow or don't give a lot of credit t was no other reason presented at the trial there was no you know the state had an opportunity to to break down you know his recantation and and you know couldn't you know present evidence maybe of motive or some something else but he received no benefit for testifying three years later except that he found god and he wanted to clear his conscience because he accused the wrong man counsel means he was even without the voice and  his voice until the line up but he said he thought that the shooter's oist may have been sean from the neighborhood and he identified shawn out of a out of a photo array but the photo ray is not indicative of guilt because again nobody ever  support a finding of guilt if that circumstantial evidence isn't hope tori it's also true that a single eyewitness identification is enough even without circumstantial evidence but here we don't have a good identification and we don't have him call the tory circumstantial evidence we have bits and pieces that when put together still don't portray a picture of guilt it's you know as a funny sal and you couldn't put the pieces all back together there are insufficient and you never sounds and then when put together the whole picture the state also doesn't dispute that the police did not act with the shot to young consent or under judicial authority when they overheard his conversation in the participation room finally the state doesn't dispute that the statute applies to to try and put it around there which you have to do they close these things and how they have to listen to people while they're going under some officers getting to five guys and other scientists who could hear everything that was there that is correct  however that say has case was a case involving implied consent as opposed to a reasonable expectation of privacy and in this case we have the record is clear that decides he did not consent to the over here he didn't know that it existed and say has the police to tell you you know we can hear you and there was a pending sound and the speaker was visible in this case none of that in fact officer said well fine he didn't want to participate so we let him and under the usurping statute there are ten exemptions to the statute and one affirmative defense so if the legislature intended to exclude this particular type of conduct they would have put it in there but they didn't i mean this is the stating that reasonable expectation of privacy is irrelevant would be in a factual language that hadn't been in there for a reason the legislature did determine that it doesn't matter what the person's reason  i'm not aware of this particular set of circumstances however i do know that the statute was amended in one thousand nine hundred four to specifically include the language that there was that it's that it applies regardless ok thank you thank you mr smith is arguing that there was no voice identification of defendant before the i d that's incorrect both really in can out up prior to the voice identification procedure step up and tell the police that they did recognize the voice of sean you have will identifying prior to that procedure you have willie coming up and saying i know this individual it's a guy i know named shawn from the neighborhood he hangs out here who is a western in harvey they go they get a photo of him they show it to to moments before the gun was recovered so you do have that testimony you have defendant under the hood of that vehicle moments before the gun was discovered under the vehicle you also have the fact that the gun was taken from the victim at the car and you have the fact that the victims from her via prior connection to this defendant or knew the defendant and then there was a lot of some kind there was testimony that he recognized the individual yes and that we came in through the testimony that  that was it not at the trial that i believe was at the grand jury testimony and that was in response to a specific question and he did in fact testify to that but he also said look and if you look at my police report i say that i saw him under the hood so that he wasn't impeached and in that regard i don't think they moments before the gun was recovered you have the fact that the victim say hey we know the guy that was there his name is sean this from the neighborhood we knew his voice and guess what the shot to young his nickname is shawn and he matches the physical description given by the people speaking back and forth where there are more than one person speaking i would argue in this conversation we're having four people having a sensually a conversation we can each identify who's speaking at any given moment it's not a jumble of voices really said he could who they were identifying at that time and that defendant was speaking there's no testimony about a jumbled voice it's a conversation are different people speaking during a conversation yes that's actually what's happening right here yet we are able to tell who's speaking at that time  they were focusing on more than that who they identified they all say the witnesses that and the police officer all were able to say they identified different there was no need for necessarily notes or what exactly the conversation was the question was whether or not will procedure employed there's nothing wrong with the procedure employed and it was employed in this manner this unusual manner because the defendant's actions but there's nothing in the testimony to say that that that it was there some equivocation every time defendants both both of these individuals identified defendant as the person whose voice they recognize and i say garcia does not equivocate on there's nothing to support this argument of jumble of oysters just because a couple people are in a conversation doesn't mean you can't understand that anything anyone saying identify i i'm sorry i apologize and the motion for new trial what you have here is the question of the trial court how hearing assess the credibility of the witnesses considered the fact that people impeach the new evidence and concluded that the new evidence was not of such conclusive character as to change the result on retrial there is no abuse of discretion you the defendant is trying to argue that the fact that willy excuse me that kenyatta came forward and became a question and that was his motivation makes it all the more believable the fact is there recantation are inherently unreliable especially when they involve compassion to perjury that's exactly what you have with kenya he's saying i perjure myself at trial but i'm telling he heard quote unquote a gang of voices i wouldn't describe our exchange as being a gang of voices i would describe this as being in conversation but again a voice is something more and he has to garcia also testified that the majority of the six people were speaking you know this is a situation where you know they say that every time the witnesses are raising their hands  speaking but the testimony also shows that other people see garcia admits that yes he was speaking but other people were also speaking at the same time this is a situation compared to something like you hear  you know the elevator man's voice every day when you come you know in exchange you know you say hello and then if you are expected to identify my voice twelve days from now in a month six simultaneous forces you know we'd argue that that's an unreliable set of circumstances to support the identifications and finally as the recantation evidence the fact that he is now presenting himself and exposing himself to prosecution of perjury does go to the credibility of his new testimony and we can compare this to you know there there are cases that hold that recantation evidence could be incredible but the also also cases where we can't teach an evidence is believed based on the circumstances of the case like burrows is still an illinois supreme court case where the prime witness at trial admitted close trial that her testimony was perjured you know