benefit from unfavorable verdict itself just like an actual in fact sometimes the actual victim is an intended victim who was not actually harmed as an attempt murder cases were a little more clarity on why this was necessary we can look at people  understands the importance of the six minute right for effect the persistence of conflict and if we look to so hernandez there was a person a conflict about in this case trial counsel previously represented the intended victim of the offense mr daniels who was not actually harmed but here the person a conflict rule does not protect mr green and that's because mr williams was not technically the actual victim but as even the speed acknowledges it is free if the state were to charge mr green with the attempted murder of williams which based on the facts alleged at trial by the state that there be no question there is a percy conflict it would qualify as a pretty confident currently and that's with no change to the underlying facts of the case or change to the relationship between trial counsel and mr williams and we don't believe that's right it's a bit of a loophole because as it stands this person a competent rule will apply not based on the justifications of the rule or purpose of the rule but rather based on the discretionary charging decisions of the state so we argue this rule is necessary clothes that will provide consistency to the person a conflict role not the state argues this rule of unworkable rule sometimes it may be too difficult to determine or impossible to determine unintended victims a careful reading of shelton shows there was an intended victim not the defendant in that case was pulled go shoot howard he got a couple of other gang members together and told him let's go shoot howard what's the scene of the shooting to howard howard wasn't shot the question in that case was rather jury instruction on transfer detention should be given when there is an issue of perhaps bad aim mistaken identity or even a generalized intent to do harm to anybody in the rival gang hangout well the answer to that question is the jury instruction is given it's unclear but if the rule were posing here today were applied to shelton the question would be simple to trial counsel previously represent our as in the car that was shot at because it was williams's car but then he said we saw the car we got excited and so that's then that's them the detective followed up that's the meaning the most the rifle game and bring clarified that's one of them kiko or williams we can also look to the p s i i that references an offense report presumably available prior to trial that indicates that the unintended victim was shot and that williams was the driver we can also look to the state's own words williams was an intended target of gang retaliation based on the state's own words prior to trial the only person that got confident saying was an intended target was williams so it was clear it was obvious it was plain look at the evidence as laid out discovery in pretrial proceedings and ask himself that i previously represent that person who is so clearly the intended victim of this event who was not the actual victim so this is another workable it is not too broad state argues it's too broad because in certain situations of the intended target is a group it will be very difficult to determine who is in the group have pretty represent anybody that's a member of that group has membership gone in and out eccentric that's a fair point but we're employee or previous commitments which would benefit from an unfavorable verdict for the defendant can you fill out that idea how in this situation would there be a benefit from  from a successful prosecution against a method accused of victimizing ultimately it's what the whole criminal justice system is based on that's the remedy for harm so that is an inherent benefit i'm not really sure what we're doing in criminal courts but there's another the person who has in fact committed a crime and has been brought to justice we all benefit from that perhaps a closer relationship between a victim someone who's been harmed in this case and shot  here so the benefit would be that something again a person who was accused of participating in an attempt to murder mr williams was successfully prosecuted and that is we would argue that here benefit there is evidence also although we're not arguing about this extending to groups and it did not say and then we do an additional analysis as to whether there is what exactly what kind of benefit was incurred so it are in our analysis of that is that there is a prison benefits efficient to sustain a person conflict and that that should extend to intend there is a benefit extended down where as the as cry representation of her reputation of victims we argue that simply should extend to intended victims so that would be our you know that and this court has not completely you know said it would never have a th category of percy conflict although we do believe that our st argument is probably a better way of where it just relates to the st category that currently exists as it relates to victims but again that would be the argument in response to that we do want to point out that the statement an additional argument and that is that william status as a potential witness would conflict with prior case law regarding percy conflicts not existing when trial counsel previously represented a potential state witness that was the same argument pro parties agree and acknowledge several of the relevant and suppose importantly is the fact that both parties acknowledge that there is not a single precedent in illinois that has ever applied this existing conflict category to anything but actual victims of charged crimes and so what that means is it would necessarily be an extension and expansion of the rule as it currently exists if this court were to apply it to the factual situation here so that is the key question in this case this legal question of whether this court wants to expand the scope of this person per se conflict and now opposing counsel here today and in the briefing relies very heavily on people versus hernandez and i would agree that is a very important and useful case that he was the actual victim of the charge crime of solicitation of murder for hire and that is not true here because again the only charge was st degree murder of jimmy lewis that means the only actual victim of the charge crime was l even accepting for the moment the allegation that he go daniel kiko williams was the intended victim so why should that be the line again hernandez is the best precedent for us to look to as to why that is the appropriate boundary and that why unless this court would follow the people's invitation to either abandon the rule or perhaps impose a limiting principle to evaluate what is the nature and spent of this prior representation and this court declared the kind to do either one stressing again the importance  so this part didn't want to have to wrestle with how recently did they have how it stands it was that prior representation the whole point of the value of the person a conflict role as opposed to the analysis of an actual conflict of interest is that it's a simple indisputable a charge crime necessarily even as can be seen an opponent's argument here today to make that evaluation is the very type of detail factual analysis this court said should not be in the per se conflict rule when discussing it hernande he's pointing to that he had signed he's pointing to a statement in the jury instruction conference talking about evidence here arguments there that involved a detailed analysis of several points of the record now compare that to the way the conflict will currently exists for example the nd conflict category is for contemporaneous representation of a prosecution witness that is not subject to his view you look at the transcripts was this person called as a witness yes or no there can be no dispute but because of the way the intent doctrine operates in illinois it is not a simple guns down easy inquiry it is not required at that stage if they want to rely upon the transferred intent doctrine to include that in the charging instrument there is no transferred intent doctrine it can be any of those things and that is why in the whole course of the trial there never has to be a definitive stance by either the parties or the jury that is why it is a bad candidate for inclusion within the per injected about the threat of the role now that is true but it's not entirely just about you know well i just want to clarify that yes there is this could potentially apply to any victim or excuse me any member of this rival gang there would be a problem of overcrowding would that mean that anybody who had ever had a professional association with any member of this rival gang would be disqualified under this rule that would be a crime but he's you know posing coun clarified that's not how he intends to expand the conflict category at least not in this case well let's keep in mind that this particular conflict category is already quite private because of what was discussed and nan is because this court chose not to put any limiting principle on the extent or nature of the prior representation the fact that i represent haitian is included is already quite prominent which is all the more reason that this court should be very obvious about expanding this category any further because after all this results in automatic reversal which is a quite extreme remedy most constitutional violations are not subject to matter reversal and let's also remember the flip side of this not only isn't it stream remedy but  importance here is what his stress and mandate is that this court should be very cautious in applying this rule given the extremity of the remedy that's provided and this court should recognise that it's important that it be simple and straightforward apply and then it not require courts will be going to the actual details of the record to determine whether it does apply another point i want to make is that one reason that my opponent is arguing for the expansion of the rule as he suggests is he thinks there is some kind of negative connotation with the notion that the application of the will would be legs to the prosecutor's choices that somehow the fact that the prosecutors charging decision would determine whether or not the rule  and taking affirmative steps to avoid and injecting a reversible error into the trial that's a responsible thing to do that's not an improper  factual question i only want to highlight the fact that there's one thing to be said about how yes maybe he'll williams was one potential intended victim but what is unclear on this record here is whether he was the exclusive intended victim the only in analysis and so if there are no further questions i mean i would ask that this court affirm the judgment of the appellate court thank you thank you voting for the motion of the united states is the people's belief that at least one of the occupants kate williams of the other vehicle was the target of gang retaliation doesn't take a lot of research doesn't require huge detailed  a truck council to see that and say well here's another incident there's an intended victim here who is not the actual victim that i have any prior association with that person it wasn't too difficult for the states realize it when it clearly stated a difficult to determine or impossible to determine in cases like that there is no plan if it's impossible to determine there is no claim and cases like this going forward where it's evident from the record prior to trial indeed represented somebody who the up and shot wasn't intended victim that can be raised in a p c it's unfortunate but it occurs even with current categories but we have put forth here today a very narrow commonsense per se conflict rule that would close  loophole make it more consistent and make the determination of whether the per se conflict rule applies based on the justification of purpose of the rule and not the discretionary charging decisions of the state and that should be how it is i mean the appears propriety here is just as bad as if it was the actual who is your trial counsel he used to represent the guy that they're using you of trying to murder doesn't look good doesn't sound good represented the spectrum some years earlier version of correct well i actually tried counsel during the evidence here hearing at one point he said i don't recall having previously represented this person until two weeks before the evidence you're hearing but he was impeached on that