ever side effects of prescription medications runners the main contention in this case revolves around whether the evidence can be considered newly discovered and whether it can change the results at trial the state doesn't contest that the evidence of material and the cumulative result in a situation when combined to provide some sort of situation to be in voluntarily and it's their opponents syndrome it simply wasn't relevant at the time now we want to also argue because the state argues that actually it was effect noted was elevated liver in time and that couldn't be replicated now the fix as well counsel in this point fourteen minutes excessive post convention counsel reference very common syndrome as part of an unrelated play petition it doesn't mention fair it's elements and grow so we argue it should be taken as true and that is supported not he would be bothered by the record but if this court were to disagree which is should not we are but if it does fall outside of that after a very or this court and people be rogers came out and said we agree with the appellate courts who have said the general assembly required to treat part of this or showing to prove intoxication to be involuntary it wasn't until two thousand and six and people view kerry when this court revisited this issue and said well you know the trick artifice imports requirement is too narrow of a restriction and in doing that this court overrule barrier including rogers and it wasn't until two thousand and eight in a case that presents a situation very similar to this one in albertson's two thousand and eight or district where this was determined to be a new rule th retroactive albert actually presented a similar situation where in that case the petitioner d at trial it was on the record that he was using psychotropic medications prescribed but the claim was raped because obviously a trick artifice and force was required a tory evidence resulting in an affirmative defense is not a mere defense it's much like self defense is an affirmative defense that is routinely used to establish actual innocence so we would argue not every defense no but if it's an this case is retroactive you say it polled court case two to support that argument but i'm going to ask you to explore that a bit certainly not every case that a court decides has retroactive effect the general rule because what that did is have the effect of broadening the scope of activity that was covered by the suburban of defense and therefore necessarily narrow scope of activity rendered criminal by substance of criminal statute which therefore gives autumn it automatically constitutional mention would ultimately i guess d fall under just i'm not exactly sure if there's an ultimate constitutional to mention to the retroactively other then of course i keep coming back to the  but i do argue that i would argue that it's clearly is retroactive based on his law where it's stablished that what's this type of statute is expanded expands the type of activity covered by this affirmative defense necessarily narrows on that question a little bit different thing if it's not newly discovered evidence but it's a legal defense that has now become available base the illinois supreme court precedent that it's a legal defense and as we know the united states supreme court and sort of the whitley and follow up and people versus qwirkle the rd district of our court has said that a claim of legal rather than factual innocence will not support an actual innocence claim so is this  sixteen case people be warned for some persuasive argument this in the case of the petitioner filed a post convention petition through counsel actual innocence claim but certain affidavits were not attached to the petition so  in this situation where and now where he's arguing that this evidence should still be treated as newly discovered which we hope is successful we hope it is it should be in our in our estimation but it puts them in this position of necessarily so where they could have just raised the claim there's no and we this is not a overruling those cases this court explicitly stated that those those cases could be understood to have precluded this claim if they clearly could not exclude the claim there was no reason to overrule them so we would argue that it did expand it but we also point out and this is sort of just persuasive the time when the use provision of that statute was interpreted to mean merely carrying the firearm during the offense beilin bailey the united states supreme court interpreted that use provision to the well actually the congress always intended that to mean active employment of the fire of firearm during the offense not just your possession so the defendant files a hippias and argue well that's a new interpretation i need to be able to withdraw my plea of not knowing intelligent it would have been frivolous to have raised it previously because the interpretation was just to be clear that we would argue that it did expand that as noted by the overruling of the cases and it's nota and it's all in the court's own statement that those cases were read and could be read to preclude this type of claim now so i guess that would bring us unless the court has any more questions about the two thousand and fourteen situation so i will point out that warren made a great point about that this isn't letting any petitioner off the hook in fact what it does is it still requires every partition or prove the elements of an actual instance claim of course which is that it's material evidence that it's not cumulative then it could change the results at trial and so this is the letting off the hook and and of course here the state does not test that the evidence serial and that it was not  but it does argue that it wouldn't change the result trial and we can get to that element now we should probably refresh ourselves on the standard robinson and the court explain total exoneration potent indication is not required here at this stage and this motion and could it result in an acquittal we argue that the answering those questions yes if we look at what would be presented at trial now we would see that now at the trial the jury's going to hear about their home syndrome but it's a serious potentially fatal condition resulting in fi mental state satisfied the involuntary intoxication statute because the standards were the same the only difference is the cause but this court in robinson also made clear that conflicting evidence doesn't defeat a claim at this stage and the jury will also he from chapman's report that he actually was suffering from side effects of serotonin syndrome consistent with his claim such as you know the report cites such such things as he felt increasingly helpless with recurrent suicidal urges believes his girlfriend agreed with his homicidal suicidal fantasies extremely anxious and tense quite confused and disorganized he felt as if he was quote losing his mind did not understand things going on around him experiences are an unusual sensory experiences and the jury's going to learn because this time around as far as the question of does this present the evidence in a different light than actually but this time around the jury has something to hang their head on to see why things changed because we learned that mr tony suffered from competition and he doesn't just spewed that he committed the acts resulting in the death of wealth and severe injury can he actually claim actual innocence or is what is the difference between trust me one day i'll be able to find a doctor who said that i had sirico and room and the particular symptom i had left me unable to understand that it was wrong to shoot my girlfriend and sh three sniff case that in that case which was several years before petitioners trial the petitioner that the defendant their present it presented an involuntary intoxication defense based on the side effects of his medication he  claim language of the statute allows for defense based on side effects description of the case it pointed out that any kind of contrary or he was talking points because most of it included people who were taking illegal drugs which ordered by his attachments but we still also maintain that even if known this was not a viable defense at the time of trial was commonly understood to be precluded and it would be unfair to bar him for presenting evidence of his actual innocence in that the record he claims that sarah palin syndrome was not discovered until several years as a result of these two drugs to be specific was not known until several years leading up to the filing of the instant petition and of course here in albert wasn't raised at that point but that would have been the st point it could have been raised we made our arguments why that should prevent him from presenting evidence of his actual innocence we would also point out that he never expressed unwillingness to rely on the expertise of coun actual innocence or warren where it would be no fault of his own it wasn't raised now we would also point out that we argue that this would probably change the results of trial under the robinson standard could it result in acqui of the present the evidence in a different light course it does look at what changed before the trial he was severely depressed before the acts he was severely depressed after them here now the trial now the jury will hear you know what we think prior to this is this is what the jury would hear that we find compelling the jury would hear that prior to seeking help mr tallman he had fantasies about killing himself and his girlfriend but was unable to do it to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law at one point he has broken wakes up in the bedroom with a shotgun loaded crying because he couldn't follow through with his desire to kill it now he seeks help that for that he could prescribe these two psychotropic medications that the senate wonders why it's there and ultimately that's a straight or put your case everything everything needed to raise that issue in that case was known as soon as he was charged he was arguing that his aggravated battery should not also  not raising the plame earlier but he's given a chance to establish his actual innocence because of that and so we would stress that this certainly is an actual instance playing it is not the smilin occasion based on the record which we should be sticking to here it was raised as soon as he could i guess with that runners unless there's any more questions we would simply want to reiterate our request for a remedy here which is to find th