defendant in this case is appealing from convictions they were entered by the jury on one hundred two counts of attempted murder these convictions were entered after a second jury trial was held after this court had initially in the first direct appeal up another trial based on two errors that were committed by the trial court in this case which relates to the credibility of these two key state witnesses the first is that the trial court refused to allow the defense to impeach with brown grains prior testimony with an affidavit in which he recanted his identification of mr killing on one of the offenders and secondly the court allowed the state to introduce prior consistent statements that the shame had  for the defense was prevented from attacking the credibility of one of the identifying witnesses and at the same time the state was allowed to bolster the credibility of the other identifying witness with respect to  you have to do is providing were national basis to show that there is a rational basis to show that it is what it purports to he to date i mean certainly mr mr burke mr graham is not talking i think it was a off this is an affidavit that was signed about seventy years after the offense he listed the date of july seventh i believe in the actual date of the offense was the end of june i absolutely a rational basis in this case for finding that this was an affidavit that was signed by le bron graham the notary yet she's not here believe she said she's also a county clerk although it is unclear where she was a without seeing valid identification and without having the individual signed the document in front of or if there's any discrepancies that goes to the weight once there's a rational basis for finding that this document is what it purports to be contest when the affidavit was delivered to defense counsel and by whom which really doesn't go to whether it was signed by one hundred that's my point the stay here this was obviously to the funds or not to the funds am not that i recall now you know i think what was what was happening here was that the trial judge himself just didn't believe that this had been signed by le bron gra in his view it wasn't authentic but that wasn't really his call to make it was a jury's call to make whether it was authentic or not and i would point out too in this case  couple sure they could have argued that yeah but what they couldn't do was keep it out altogether because reading again the closing arguments the prosecutor in this case both the opening closing argument in the republic the prosecutor made a big point about how a variety of graham's prior testimony that he had identified up thirty forty fifty times i think he mentioned that at least three times during one of his closing arguments and and pressed the point that there was nothing to contradict mr graham's identification of mr fill affidavit certainly would have done that in the defense was deprived of any opportunity to challenge the credibility of the identification from the first trial and also a case where it made a and the state its position is that the foundation that was presented by the defense did not meet the requirements for admission of this affidavit as substantive evidence under one fifteen ten point one or one fifteen ten point to the code of criminal procedure this was never being admitted for substantive purposes the defense attorneys in the trial court repeatedly said we want to introduce this room pietschmann purposes the state was allowed to introduce new bits of an interview that two detectives it had with the shade actually during the middle of the trial and one snippets did was not only bulls who credibility but the detective credibility because they started out this little snippet started out with the shea saying the truth isn't what i told you the first time and the detective i believe one of the detectives who had sho photographic wind said and what it is they had just that we can be one hundred percent certain and then she was allowed on the videotape to say that i saw these two men that i was able to identify them and then the officer said and you identified them in the following up immediately after this shooting is that correct yes that's correct did we say anything to you to do shoot did we pressure you know we didn't do any thing wrong the only purpose of that was to bolster the credibility of her identification of these two witnesses that jeb bush you know wanting this said he was allowing it in as substantive evidence to perfect impeachment i can't  this evidence to suggest that she was telling the truth because the detectives talked to her in a secure environment and she felt safe so you can basically telling the jury you can be sure that what she said to the detectives is true women she was able to identify these men because she told them this and she told them that she properly identified them to detectives in cells were able to get before the jury that they hadn't done actually another witness who whose testimony was read at the she just she testified that she was in a second floor apartment looking down at the street heard gunshots that the area was dark she said there was a white over the apartment building where two men ran out of that was contradicted by a police officer who actually took a video of the scene and that mike was not on so her claim was that she was looking down from the second floor or two men running out of the building in a dark area running for for a matter of seconds and that based on the ad she was able to identify her how can i circle people's faces if i hear or see them home but they want me to do it so i have to do it while i do want to clarify because to shape the directed that they have to separate juries in this case and i don't recall if mr phillipos was the green or the blue jury but they have two separate juries the direct examination of the shade took place jointly the attorney the other things where defense counsel for mr parker did go on and on about did the police tell you anything and gotten many responses from her that might have intimated they had the police so we liability and then says is not really at issue here in the only issue is was there a sufficient basis for finding that this was what it purports to be and there certainly was with the testimony of the military you're urg sentence that takes seven seventeen it's quite not distinct because that's the day that graham was released from the hospital so that indicate the where that day comes from also be  beds as the individuals by the people's exhibit two fifty four and fifty three so at that time in response to leading questions rogers identifies parker as a shorter man and people's exhibit two fifty four then again on cross examination she said no she didn't see that too and managed to too many spaces on redirect examination she flips once again and she says the defendants were were  important she goes into a lengthy flow quote first and foremost i was to come to the station my grandma came down there to get me from the station my grandma asked the police to stop asking questions because first import was they didn't  it she never said she knew what it was she said that she always checked the ids and she would never go through as a doctor without showing a proper identification photograph id and that is the job of a notary the court is also able to look at this and to make a decision you know you were talking about the liability but my question looking at the trial course ruling on this issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in one working or a liability i recall not that i recall i mean this was a very i mean it was a perfunctory for me a very frustrating you know scenario that one might have done however even if this court finds that there was a trying to rehabilitate her i mean her testimony was just all over the place and they can come to me to attention purposes again whether or not it would have made a difference they were actually three to three juries now that convicted these people parker is accountable for failure and job since graeme's affidavit relates to philly off to philly off didn't do it and how can the state accountability on parker based upon the fact that fill your didn't do it which means that for purposes of admissibility of the affidavit shouldn't parker's jury be allowed to hear the point being if supposing mr parker's be charged with accountability then why wouldn't the affidavit also find his case whether or not it was admissible in both cases i mean clearly if it's admissible in russia's assume it's a it's it's there's a rational basis to say that the group made this clearly that that would be admissible under eight or six in philly  we're not saying that they were pushing her to testify and certainly the to keep her mentally stable to be able to come in and recite the testimony and she called it and i think that that's something we  the crime on june twenty ninth the thereafter so in point of fact when the police did speak to us that we are sorry to graham they did actually have some person in mind based on a phone call that any briefs about double jeopardy basically pointing to this court to go back and review thing for the trial based on double jeopardy purposes that it was these were two different trials at the first trial there was highly prejudicial ms rogers had under people need to invent the illinois supreme court is how they don't you can't just reverse when there is when a reasonable doubt claim is a before the court so that has no bearing there's no further question