please the court and counsel the statute that issue in this case section one fifteen josh ten point one i rouse for the introduction of prior inconsistent statements when the witness recants while testifying at trial but  exception to the hearsay rule does not obliterated all of the other rules of evidence were allowed to state and unfair advantage through the limitless introduction of the prior inconsistent statements in this case the state show the jury the prior videotaped statement of freddy guys after he recanted that trial not just during his testimony but a total of three separate times during the trial similarly the state introduced two prior the state to cope with the recounting which is what the state with the statute was designed to do the repetition of this testimony had the effect of our believing it above what was said at trial and therefore do the state a leg up on the defense on the flip side of the scrying adding to the unfairness the state was a multiple mr it's case with the hearsay testimony from the county paramedic regarding what a doctor who did not testify at trial court should reverse the videotape was brought in through guys who run his impeachment then published again through a s c best shot although this was objected to it by defense counsel and raised in the course trial motion the trial court continued to allow it to be played but the only need for the teetering bishops testimony was really to show that the statement was made voluntarily it didn't need to be published in its entirety a second time then during rebuttal argument the state played the portions of the to leap at multiple points and you would never be allowed to do this with a live witness you would never be allowed to bring in the same person to testify it three separate points during the trial to what he had already testif us really need to establish was that it was a voluntary statement which you i would agree that the statute doesn't have a limit but i would say that the general rules of evidence still prejudice to my client i mean here this trial really became about what was said four years ago it became about the prior consistency leman's prior inconsistent statements of of of these individuals in the street it right off the bat i mean right in opening argument the jury that they do know what their witnesses were going to see on the stand they also suggested that heath two brothers had a motive to ride because they sided with your brother and that freddie guys would rather be anywhere but testifying at trial so they knew from the beginning that these prior inconsistent statements were going a coward i think the real question here is how much is too much and in this case the jury heard this over and over again and the problem with it is that it's the jury's responsibility is to try or fact to look at credibility determination but if they hear the soon inconsistent statements particularly on videotape over and over again that tips the balance in the credibility determination because the laughter of hearing the live testimony but then hearing the repeated use of these prior inconsistent the state was a route to booster let's claim that freddy guy's was making up his story about being abused at trial by claiming that through the testimony of a paramedic an exam room doctor during the intake process didn't find any injuries on him she specifically testified that there was nothing that they wrote about any trauma this is a classic example of hearsay and the state mood that the stock trader's covering this testimony through the challengable and i think it's significant that the state referred to this in their closing argument th testimonial that it shouldn't have come in and it was relied upon by the state in the closing argument really only had three witnesses who could put keith pinkly at the soon of this shooting and a unfairly brister their case by bringing in the prior inconsistent statements and bringing in this doctors this doctor statement i think it adds to the general unfairness of this trial the second respect to the trial court doesn't think a lot of sense based on what happened trial i mean as i said before the state the steam that it's witnesses were likely going to recant and clearly the entire tenor of the state's examination the response was to challenge his claim that his prior inconsistency of it was the product of police coercion so when he they were clearly charging that he was recently fabricating his testimony and so when real defense counsel asked him about this and he was allowed to testify that he was taking to west suburban hospital immediately after his grand jury testimony this o p s complaint should have come  allows prior consistency events and clearly the court ruled that the subject matter related to the very same things that the research testifying about on the stand because i just couldn't rule that it was a prior consistent still event without knowing the nature of the enhanced by the fact that it was on videotape but it came in not once not twice but three times during the trial it was the last thing that the jury heard and it unfairly and we unfairly interfered with that your discredi determination then responsible for being a rice testimony against what was said in the past but not having to cope with what was said in the past at three separate times during the trial on the other side of the crying the trial court heard in allowing new study to unfairly both share its case with hearsay testimony from a doctor that the state ruled was going to likely be more credible in the eyes of the jury even though all the doctor and the paramedic were all general rule rules of evidence to apply and the problem is i think since johnson this is become a matter of routine roomies trials and rule state basically you know it doubters is many prior inconsistent statements in the attempt to incumbent upon upon the court to kind of bring this practice  were very good thank you we roll that in response to defense's argument regarding the video which they claim was shown to the jury multiple times it sounds as a defendant as  that the assistant state attorney continued to play the video in its entirety throughout the entire trial and that is certainly not the case the reading of the record shows that this witness denied what he had stated previous and in order to bring in what was a proper prior inconsistent statement the assistant state attorney asked freddy what his answers were with regard to the various questions the assistan attorney listened to his answer and then played that portion of the videotape it did in fact them come in during assistant state's attorney those shots testimony and then came in again during rebuttal at different points however again this is a witness that denied what he said in the videotape that was taken hours after the shooting and the state's attorney's office had the right to bring in this prior inconsistent statement or yes yes it was used during closing argument again in order to show that this witness in our mind was lying on the stand and that his prior inconsistent statement was actually what argument pooh the argument itself will ya know but we have the right to shall know exactly what freddie guyse was doing in that courtroom and what he had said prior again there was no objection and you have to show and again they had the right to show there was no objection this argument as we have argued in our brief every single argument raised by defendant is wait there was no objection in the has to be remembered that this videotape went back with the jury and there was no objection to that so rather or not it was shown the various times during child this jury could have watched it a thousand times in the jury ground so the defendant at trial did not feel that it was a problem and their argument on appeal should absolutely be forfeited as they again felt that it was not an issue at trial and it is now been preserved with regard to  what we call the crawford issue regarding the paramedic victoria for him was not the only person that examined friday solid pursued all dead and both witnesses testified that friday had no injuries the defense attorney at trial was allowed to cross examine the assistant state's attorney who was with freddie in the room all of the police officers and there was nothing in this child that could prove that this person was injured and even if this court were to find that this was hearsay and we are not conceding whatsoever it was but even if it was and even if you were to find that it was ten demonio and again we argued in our brief it was not testimonial any air or read so whatever is absolutely harmless this was completely cumulative and this doctor who examined freddy was examining friday to see if he had a problem with bronchitis because he had asthma he was not in a position where he was examining this person as a government entity he was just looking to see if in fact the paramedic who took freddie in had a right to believe that friday may have a problem with his asthma or bronchitis because the summer months were coming and not because he was possibly injured while he was in the police station so again even if this court were to find any possible error we would find that the cases that we cited in our brief especially people versus stukely this court would have to look at what the objective circumstances have led a reasonable person to conclude their statement could be used against offended there was there was nothing here that you could conclude that and once again th regarding the doctor what she said was the assistant state's attorney asked her if she saw anything on the doctor's report that showed that there was any trauma and what she said was she didn't see anything on the report so it book very serious but again the dr was only looking at freddy to determine whether or not he had an issue with bronchitis his report had nothing to do with this murder whatsoever and again as i stated even if you were to go through all the different levels as you do in our brief there can be no other conclusion but any possible error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt especially given all of the other testimony and the cross examination that was done by defense counsel there is nothing in this record that can substantiate any trauma whatsoever to friday with regard to the defendant's fact the controlling cases for this issue and again inconsistency is measured against trial testimony not against other statements that conflict with trial testimony and race reynolds go the handwritten statement that he gave grand jury testimony on defense counsel talked about bringing in the quote reporter well the reason we had to bring the quote reporter into trial is because luis reynolds completely denied everything that he said in the grand jury court room though everything was transcribed he said he had no idea who said that and he completely denied ever saying it so of course we had to bring in the court reporter to rebut his testimony with regard to the o p s complaint once again as all issues have been waived so has this this was not included in the trial motion and there was absolutely no offer of proof made it trial even though there was a statement made was even an o p s complaint of course as argued again in our brief we argued that it was irrelevant it was irrelevant and most importantly it was a prior consistent statement that could not be used to  absolutely a consistent statement that was properly not admitted but once again if this quote were to find any possible error it is harmless error as well reese was allowed to bring in during that cross examination information regarding russ suburban memorial hospital and his visit as the defense counsel said that he immediately went there i don't remember a statement in the record saying that he was i said he went there to have the hospital look at his bruised ribs state of check did today have information coming in but the trial court said no he would allow the act also the defense attorney was allowed to cross the assistant state's attorney i'm going to address the state's arguments in reverse chronological order so i'll start with the o p s complaint i think it's clear from the record that the trial court knew what was in the o p s complaint as far as is putting say with an unfair advantage second of all that i think that i think the service says she doesn't have a specific limit it again the rules of evidence applied to the state in their argument said they could put it a thousand times i don't think they can play it a thousand times i don't think you can prove the same piece of evidence before the jury times and expect to have a fair trial in this case particularly when it was on videotape and you had the effect of these prior inconsistent statements that were made floating years ago over what was said in the trial now if we had a system where we could bring in a room with prior inconsistent statements and convict on the pieces that would be one thing but this is a long trial with live testimony the state brought in seventeen witnesses i mean most of them were law enforcement people when you really look at the evidence in this case there was only three witnesses who actually put keith pinkly at the scene and all of them recanted at trial so that's  testimony he was taken to west suburban hospital this was clearly the entire tenor of the state's direct examination of aris was sinful that he was fabricating his claim that he had been beaten under the offer of proof was fine i mean the other side of people is that the delinquent in his grief was that if the trial court understands the substance of the material that's going to be offered there's no need for anything more from all that now and it was the trial court that chose to take in the testimony from the doctor to refute that but rather to release was sixteen years old at the time and he consistently claimed that he was threatened by the police officers i mean he he had some mother she was not allowed to see her son that she went to the police station repeatedly the girl the lawyer for juries was allowed to testify at trial and who claimed he claimed that he was not allowed to go in and s  as quiet with respect to juries i think you know the defense counsel was able to bring in some evidence to to support your research claim that he was stratton but with respect to these other two witnesses the state just had a completely unfair was going to be persuasive to the jury that's the whole point of bringing the testimony and through the paramedic and responsive to their claim that he was just checking them for bronchitis the paramedics said it was medical conditions but it was also any signs of trauma in the last seven days now she didn't get a full exam of him i believe she testified that she doesn't look at him from the waist up and that there's another procedure for looking at them from the waist down but i think clearly if  you were freddie guys you're looking at her in her blue paramedics uniform with her do you see patches on her sleeves and thinking this is part of of law enforcement saying with a doctor i mean you're in the intake process for  this is not going to visit your family doctor in private practice this is going to to be examined by somebody who's a member of the general machinery of the state this isn't somebody that freddy guys thought was on his side or that he could confide in and i think when you when you take it in context and really consider how he might have viewed all of these individuals that he came in contact with particularly sarva pseudo who was the intake officer who was who's also clad in a co mean you have to think that these people were acting as agents of the state and not is somebody who is working independently finally as i said initially with respect to the