their arguments if palin will also have five minutes for every bottle played not only the clerk of the court is permitted to record these proceedings good morning counsel how are you on your own or are we ready to proceed yes your honor being go right ahead miss will hand you thank you good morning your honor counsel i'm susan will hand with the office of the state appellate defender i represent ronald jr and he was denied the effective assistance of counsel ineffective assistance the narrative of the videos prepared after the fact was hearsay it did not meet any exception for admissibility and the state's brief did not notice any exception that would allow its admissibility if not of prior inconsistent say a prior consistent statement it's not recorded recollection it's not an excited utterance and it doesn't meet the exception for statement by child sex abuse victim miss wilson and yet why isn't it a pass recollection reported because she was able to recall at trial all of the events in the notebook and they didn't have ever take her through whether or not she had a problem remembering things in fact they talked about how good she wasn't remembering everything and they never with through the narrative in the know she began he had you need to have someone not remember in order to have asked recollection recorded i believe you need to have some foundation given for that and i think the problem here is the only thing she testified about in the trial was the the drawing at the beginning of the notebook but there was never any testimony or explanation other than she drew these people who curse as well to rock them all to rock him and yes your honor off the top of my mind i'm not familiar with that but i will look it up and if you would like i can do a supplemental free in of the child and the calendar on appeal to the supreme court was deemed admitted and it seems to me that we have a very similar issue here and as i said i was a young lawyer  as a prosecutor back in the day and that calendar got the minutes so when i read this case it reminded me of walter rocca men it's just one of those cases you never forget because it was so important in your career but you that time in order to look at the case well i believe that i can distinguish it simply on the fact that you're talking about in iraq i'm in a calendar where somebody filled out every day f things were happening this was a narrative that was written after the fact and might why isn't it a matter of trial strategy why couldn't the attorney say i would rather get this notebook and then them look like i'm picking on this victim for an hour and a notebook and that narrative she was never questions the difficulty on the narrative she was only questioned about the boat drawing at the beginning and so to allow this narrative if he basically just allowed it to come in i'm shallow just so that's not a trial strategy at all that is he simply did not realize the impact of what was coming in him and so that's a breakdown and they have a serial system and so and i believe that when we move to the prejudice prong what we're going to see is that without this there would be a different outcome because taking just a st alleged encounter in the courtroom she only described digital  sion and that encounter but then when you read her description in the notebook it's much more descriptive it includes additional lacks the sexual conduct that were not part of her in court testimony and that would have been available for the jury  during her deliberations so and that by that failure the defense counsel allowed the jury access to information that was never subject to cross examination and i believe that this leads into part of our problem here is been the state was able to use the snow book and especially in its closing arguments and that also be the thing to the argument that not only was the state able to use this improper narrative in closing telling the jury that a wrote everything in here and she argued that they could use this a substantive evidence and defense counsel didn't do anything to limit the admission or the use of them and in out in consistencies and talk about credibility and whatnot in their closing argument i would say that she went much further then bringing out inconsistency isn't credibility she repeatedly vouched for a hey same things like she was a compelling and credible witness her memory was the nominal but that's typical of people with asperger's so again boughton for her credibility and she also attacked ron your st wife lisa saying she sabotaged this case lisa is lying to protect her husband she accused her of falsifying her testimony merely to discount the medical evidence and so her closing argument would win over the line of simply commenting on the evidence to attack one witness while valjean for the other and again we have no objection to this so this court is going to have to apply the pla error doctrine and run yarber has to show that our evidence is closely balance so that this error alone is yet the balance of justice against him but here we do have serious gaps in the state's ability to prove the element of the charged offenses a testifying to several specific acts of penetration that began at different ages and if you parse out her testimony you see that there are gaps and when she says the things occurred she also said that these acts occur sometimes every day sometimes every few weeks she used the phrase continuously but then we learn a crop examination that there's a two month period when she's not in the arbor home so there's no sexual conduct she only described the exxon when she was in test and in court testimony she only described the x is occurring in her bedroom in the trailer on cottage grove road she never explained that the x continued after goodness i'm sorry it was not isolated during these years steve than a lot of time eternal manner where bonnie mehan paid for expert opinion that she could not accept a secret and she was having sex dr james peterson evaluated her in two thousand and eight in the middle over there i suppose it is news and gave and said that he not only found nothing indicating that she was being abused he found that she was the writing in that home jeremy job who counseled her throughout these years testified that while a talk freely about her previous abuse she never indicated that she was currently a victim of abuse so and again we have an that there was a plane error in the state's improper closing argument and the evidence here was closely balanced and for that reason the jury's ability to properly weigh the evidence was impacted by these improper their admonitions and we would ask this court grant ronde barber a new trial thank you thank you counsel obviously you'll be given time for rebuttal and before we close today then we will discuss time frames if you will wish to have the supplemental briefs on the case that justice case has brought up so before we ended they will talk about that massage but are you ready to project began i then go right ahead good morning your honor counsel and may it please the court my name is valerie and i represent the state of illinois in this matter the people of the state of illinois versus ronald yard to provide some background in this case in november two thousand to fifteen the state charges the defendant with sixteen counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child for the four act the penal finished ration digital penetration i struggled with this word the defendant with two hundred and forty counts of criminal sexual assault with the same four act mentioned previously committed against eighty eight who was under eighteen years of age and time and at that time the defendant was a family member o the state as it states in its brief there's an argument to be made that a was a family member at the time that the statute was in effect when the word uncle was not included because there is things in the record that do state that which the parties stipulated that a was not living with the defendant and lisa then this question they came those counts but affirmed the rest of the judgment below so as do you are you saying we should break mate reconviction entirely disclosed and the other was written i think by a counselor even though it's in the record of the jury didn't hear it you would agree that it's a matter of proof that the trier fac started before she was twelve she says it was she was twelve and a half and continued until she was twenty one and she said sometimes every day yes sometimes every few days so she was consistent and when things did happen however with specificity to the specific act if opposing counsel is correct in asserting that she did admit that none of those are certain acts did not occur until she was thirteen or until she was fourteen then yes the courts should probably not remembering the exact count there were so many in this case but i am looking for that while you're doing that following up on just a spot of question are you saying these facts are still disputed or the yes your honor actually ok i did find it on page fourteen of the clothing counselor by rape she does mention that a testify that she was penetrated gradually with a penis than she was fourteen years old and that's on page seven hundred and fifty nine of the supplemental common law fourteen and they charged it as occurring since she was twelve then for each month of those that he was convicted then those should be vacated ok ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not object to the admission of the notebook without asking for limiting instruction on use to the jury however as the supreme court has stated in people versus williams because opposing testimony is considered merely cumulative in nature and should not affect the outcome of the trial in that sense with respect to the rd argument defendant brought up the prosecutor committed reversible error when she made comments of prosecutorial misconduct however rescued our imported wide latitude in closing argument and reversal on retrial are not warranted unless the improper remarks constituted a material factor in the defendant's conviction and the defendant has not been on any evidence to prove that that is what the case was in and here on this just quickly to touch on the williams case that was just for far too and the williams case one of the one of the important details was that there was nothing in the letter that was admitted there that was not also covered in testimony and here as i explained before her testimony and as counsel just discussed with the state her counsel was vague and the narrative of abuse was much more detailed much more graphic and could have allowed the jury to add in additional information that was never properly before the court and i understand your honest frustration when i st tried to figure out which can now go out because this is somebody who doesn't give anything there's nothing in the testimony that we can pin down to this mom is that the summer was it snowing outside and it all comes back to this resident child molester standards set out in letcher and even lecture which allows for such an error generic testimony says a victim of still describe the kinds of acts committed with sufficient more they charged him with two hundred and sixty two dollars and they got convictions on two hundred and fifty four dollars separate and distinct offenses it would be their burden to prove the elements of each of those offenses and as your authors have discussed there are elements that were not lived with her parents at one point so she the state have specific elements that they had to prove and even in lesser where the court talks about allowing the big testimony this generic testimony they still  hated to kill because the testimony was insufficient to show those distinct acts of penetration and here or we have a charge of four distinct that distinct acts of penetration each and every month the testimony needs to show that each and every one of those four types of penetration happened monthly letter was concerned about children who lacked a meaningful point of reference and one of the examples they gave was moving between houses she even with these meaningful points of reference available the state did not bring out more precise testimony and this generic testimony is dangerous even much are found that this that testimony that penetration occurred to many times to remember is simply insufficient though here when you go through her testimony and you parse it out she testified to active it on specified age we simply do not have the sting the fission products to support two hundred and fifty four dollars separate and distinct defenses and for that reason i would ask that your that this court yes your honor i went i made up a chart months years types of penetration and i went through her testimony and the problem is she doesn't give month she give  the oral penetration in the summer she was twelve and hannah does not specify a month but i know that court allows us to money to be some of flexible as far as months she says anal anal bestial and anal contrition fourteen again no months and digital penetration at an unspecified age those are her specific that's a testimony and your honors i struggled also where to put those on the chart i mean this is that we are territorial letter we're letter talks about the testimony has to be specific you have to ground it in some way and here the state did not elicit strong testimony that would ground these specific acts in a way to distinguish them from each other it's twelve and a half possibly yes those are the only i mean those are the only two that you could possibly pendejo ok thank you very much and just to follow up with justice kate's those those are two counts of predatory classics correct no the twelve and a half would be predatory class acts but two thousand and four she would have already passed the age limit and she would be it would just be the class one ok well thank you counsel going back to what we talked about earlier would you like to have time to file supplemental briefs regarding the makes me no difference just now that sounds five anything else from council or from the court so did you give her ten days or seventy we'll give miss we'll have fourteen days and then miss