seven years earlier none of this had any bearing on the charge conduct a home invasion and it prevented the jury from hearing the evidence related to her dispassionately the illinois supreme court and  recognize that past misconduct is not admissible because the jury made the defendant not because the state establishes every element of it's part of the crime of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt but because the jury feels that the defendant after trial for the two thousand and ten robbery here the jury was told without objection from the defense lawyer that monte who had a criminal past through the testimony of deputy horstmann who testified that monty hall was arrested as an adult seven years before the incident here that he was booked then in two thousand and three and that is kreutz were taken by the police at that time then in closing rebuttal argument the state reminded the jury that monteagle had been printed seven years earlier world for the jury to learn that manti t e o was arrested booked and printed in two thousand and three and yet the lawyer made no objection to that in addition to the prior criminality evidence there was also evidence about a also matched the latent print found on the on the low recovered from the apartment just after that illinois state police examiner d cross took the stand and said that she was also a latent print and that when she has an unknown print she can compare it to a database of known offenders with a known database which she called a fix and that tied up you know that avis is a database of at least sometimes of known offenders any of it put into the jury's mind that avis is for to commit crime defense counsel failed to keep this evidence from the jury to object to the music when it was introduced her to even strike it from the record and he himself actually elicited the codice courson of this evidence himself his feelings of prejudice mont being armed with a firearm during the offense because there was no evidence introduced at trial that the object in his hand was actually a fire and that it met the statutory definition of a firearm this farm a home invasion but the fire carries with it a very hefty sentence to sentence of six to thirty years without the firearm and then a mandatory add on a fifteen years if if a person is armed with a firearm and whether or not a gun is a firearm have did not have the firearm but there was unequivocal testimony that that person was able to identify the gun as as a gun and that there was additional evidence that the court relied on the additional evidence that there was a heavy clogging sound when the gun hit the counter and woman turned around and saw that it was a gun on the counter plus there was surveillance video itself so the judge was also able to see the object in the end make a determination that it was a firearm and there was also a still from that video so in those instances even though a gun is not recovered there can be additional evidence for example there might be evidence that the gun was used was fired there could be bullets or gunpowder residue there could be extrinsic threats like i'm going to kill you or i will shoot you though there are cases that provide those additional elements who are in those cases where a witness has some experience with a gun or that they are able to unequivocally testify because of their exposure to the item in their hand or because of their own exposure or knowledge base about about guns and firearms that they're able to to make that to make that determination so really the point here is i mean i'd like to analogize to in terms of the firearm being a gun or a gun and being a firearm i mean for example in geometry euclid had this axiom that every record take every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square and the way that you make a determination about whether or not a four sided four angle heavy penalties for crimes that are committed with actual firearms and in order to and they have they've given to be very specific definition they've explained what a firearm is and they've explained what a firearm is not and so for the state that i mean but the state  if they go forward on a case and they charge with a firearm and they want the fifteen year out on then take their records have to hold the state to this high burden of proving that it's actually a firearm i mean where the statue consider with the witnesses testimony was described simply something that is black and square which certainly fits a lot of guns that are not firearms and they may also fit firearms but it fits like i mean in the brief i i think you can this goes of this case purely on the overwhelming evidence of guilt if you don't go any farther we have both victims testifying that they didn't know the defendant  invaded their home and held them at gunpoint had on a navy blue bandana folded into a triangle covering the lower part of his face minutes after after the perpetrator fled the victims found a navy a was found on that bandanna so there's really no other it defies the laws of probability to say that if a small point because of the  defendant were having had this mask on the most that the victims could say was that he was hispanic and and the defendant is so it defies the laws of probability this is a that is a person that neither one of these victims had ever met in their lives and yet his fingerprints are on the cheerios and their apartment and his d n a is on a bandana exactly like the one the perpetrator used found immediately after the robbery and immediately outside their door there's just and only thing to counter that is defendant's live in girlfriend who has basically she says well i know he was here well how do you know he was here well because he'll he's always here in the morning he always helps me with the kids since he always helps me with the kids and he must have been there on this particular day and not to mention her bias so this or the code is was wrong in people versus levy the court noted that the mere inference that the defendant had committed some offense in the past without some suggestion as to the nature and fingerprints were on an arrest card at the police department as a result of some minor offense or because of this failure to post bond on a traffic offense without any further indication as to the basis for his fingerprints on and arrest card there is insufficient evidence of defendant having committed a crime i would also know that this was infinitesimal testimony so one very small could the fact that the outcome and two wasn't wrong all right for him to say that moving on to atheists i point out in the state's brief a very significant at least i believe it to be very significant typographical error in the defendant's and that is not what officer cross said she said to known offenders or to our known database and he says i think there's a really big difference between those no two statements a known database is all known fingerprints and i spent much more time that probably needed to wandering around through the statutes looking for all the people that need to to give their fingerprints and the only thing that surprised me was that i didn't have lots of people get fingerprinted for lots of reasons and probably the biggest one is jobs so the fact that someone said a fetus is not doesn't mean that they're criminals so she did not say no to known offenders in and no testimony that when she said to no one offenders who are who are known database called that that could also mean known offenders but then what does the word or n people that have been fingerprinted and no one said this was a database of known offenders and as far as brief he says well nobody gave an innocent explanation to the jury well in people versus hopkins the court said surely one of the common experiences experiences in life that many jurors have had or know about is that governmental agencies frequently fingerprint people seeking or obtaining employment so nobody had to go tell this jury jurors are not required to leave their common sense at the door they know that they didn't have to be specifically told that the only other mention of atheists was state police agent lee so daniel who simply said this was an illinois state police database all she said she didn't there was nothing wrong with what happened here there was no error in the in the admission of this testimony therefore crown counsel didn't do anything wrong by not objecting to it moving on to cod e first of all we have to consider procedurally how code this ever came to be mentioned here and that is when detective campbell was talking about how they have  go talk to him so this is a continuing narrative of the events of the defendant's arrest and our supreme court has long held that it's not there to admit testimony about the crimes if it's part of a continuing  the arrest of the defendant people verses jackson also another supreme court case says that it is not error to admit testimony that the defendant's d n a is contained in code this and that match sample from the crime scene jackson again goes to this common knowledge that jurors have that codice contains several different indexes and not all of them are family based and it jackson specifically  so again it was no error therefore there's no nothing wrong with not objecting to it and since there was nothing wrong to mentioning any of didn't testify about known offenders at all the testimony about covert had nothing it's simply he said that they checked his all of these people who are attributed to having said that his fingerprints were were known offenders that his d n a was known offenders and there simply was no testimony nt was just being stubborn and contemptuous the only pitched battle was that the defendant just kept refusing to to submit to to the swab it wasn't a legal battle legal point that they were battling over and so i think it is quite reasonable for defense counsel to have not expected this to come up in the oral argument it really is not a very important  and especially when you if this hurt anybody hurt the state that's what the transport pointed out was that if this hurt anybody hurt the state because they said they were going to present some testimony on this and then they didn't so you take a statement that's made opening arguments on remember when they started but will just say monday morning and on tuesday afternoon the judge says you know i am going  to not allow that to not he's gotten what is really important thing which is to not get the testimony itself right and to not bring the jury's attention to it by saying remember what and and just let it ride from there touching briefly on the second issue as to whether a gun is a gun defendant says that that that testimony that this was a gun was  and that it was just square black thing and that perhaps could be true of what lindsey one of the young women that said about the gun but jana testified that he had a black automatic handgun it was not a revolver now did she say it well i'm sorry just like to do a james bond movie last week so i'm going to say that was a whopper p p t a but no she didn't say that you don't have to testify that it was a three fifty seven magnum you don't have to testify that it was a that's exactly what she said she said it was a black automatic handgun was not a revolver it didn't have a hammer it was black it was six or seven inches long and she is doing this thing at arm's distance she s issue the defendant says well he take he takes issue with the fact that the gun was never recovered and i'm quoting from the opening brief making it impossible to examine its physical properties to determine if it qualified as a there in lies the problem with the defense reliance on was i cited to this court that this court's decision in people versus holly and very very similar and statute and they have them in their possession or control it was incumbent upon them to produce such objects for evidence in order to disprove the state's evidence and support their defense to place such a burden on the defendants is not offensive to their constitutional right to remain silent nor does it really represent a shift in the burden of proof for the state and so we're not making defendant prove anything here other than if he says that wasn't a gun that was a toy and he has complete control over this object then he has it's incumbent upon him to presen and and the victim described it as a small very portable gun and she identified the pellet gun as the one used in the robbery the police officer who testif says that this is a four point five b b gun it's a b b gun ok and the state has it in those circumstances then and they didn't they did  not present the gun into evidence nobody ever saw the gun around in those circumstances you have a theory very different situation and the court said the state needed to then prove that you just said which is that when jenna gets up there and says this was a gun that it's semi automatic that it's not every ball for that it's black that it's six inches when been doing fingerprints for fifteen years she took this fingerprint and she compared it to the defendant's print card statement on and then they came back to it they said she match the defendant's prints to print taken back in two thousand and three in the the prior arrest in his prior criminality by reminding the jury that that horseman took his prints in two thousand and three which was seven years before the issue at trial here so yes this is this there was some hate made of then de cross took the stand and whether there's a common her comments or whether there was not a comment a comment or comment i'll leave it to the to the court you have the record but what she said was that when she's a she's a latent fingerprint examiner if she finds a print of an unknown source she can compare it to a database of known offenders or known database called a fetus so there was no it was completely unnecessary for deep cross two to say in prejudicial for the cross to say that if this is  database of known offenders and that is what she said and the records says that you know that there may have been a comma there may not have been a part of the state's argument seems to suggest maybe there's two databases one of known offenders and one of knowns and the other point about this is that medical donor recipients and medical reasons there be all kinds of reasons the jury was not told about that and so so that point is you know interesting but not necessarily probative  criminal they were told that is that his fingerprints were in a database they were told the database was for known offender so when she mentions the snowball effect that's exactly what the argument is that they were told not just the one single mention that you pointed out in codice where there is no definition of what and no you know inference that you know other then combined with all this other evidence that he's a bad guy he's a criminal he has a propensity to commit crimes and then he deserves punishment so you know yes there was a snowball effect and that snowball effect is the point of this made that point on notice in jackson and jackson they make very clear that a single isolated reference a mere mention of codice without more is not prejudicial it doesn't give any indication that codice is a criminal database that's not what happened here we have the mention of like you pointed out there wasn't a definition of notice but that's not all we have here we have a whole lot of other things and so jackson is not is not dispositive of this because there was more than just a single or  mention as to sirene of pain and whether or not whether or not the jury whether or not she recalled it with specificity that day and question the thing about siren of pain issued for kids under the age of ten they caught three different buses and she said that she would remember if mr monti who was not there because he's the one that got everybody up and made them breakfast and you know i am only two kids in my house and i know that when i don't have i remember the days that i don't have versus the