record to suggest that he did not consider any of those like he did that he considered certainly the nature and circumstances of the crime he discussed them and imposing his sentence he touched upon role in the commission of the crime that he did not that when he mentioned her prior juvenile adjudication for aggravated battery he made a comment that had occurred not long before this offense in fact occurred five years prior she was only nineteen at the time five years is a fairly substantial period of time not only that he failed to recognize what she did in the interim to better herself that she she admittedly had this huge knowledge occasion for aggravated battery but it's noteworthy that she went on to successfully completed a year's worth of probation and against the odds she graduated from high school at the age of seventeen she goes to college she completes a year of or excuse me a semester college away from home just financial difficulty returns home but she doesn't abandon her dedication education she enrolled at a local school and she was actually a college student the time of the sense and you mentioned that she was not sure she was not the shooter she did not pull the trigger what relationship did she have to the shooter should the shooter was the father of her unborn child or what are they he was her boyfriend of eight months at the time  said she testified there you see she didn't testify but in her statement she she told the officers that she told him not to go forward with this plan that she initially did try to dissuade him from from dissipating this plan and  this this case involves an untried and undeniably tragic series of events it is noteworthy that there was no intent to kill here these three young adults did not set off that day with the ultimate goal of as the state suggests cold blooded lee hunting down a victim fact that the crime was not premeditated that she was not the trigger person her role in the event you know that there was this amorphous plan to rob the summer vehicle we think that her her knowledge of only the most nebulous details about this plan suggest that this isn't she didn't spend a week you know honing in crafting this plan to rob an armored vehicle she agreed to go along with this idea that her boyfriend has it was a bad decision we do not dispute the fact that it was a bad decision but given her tremendous potential for rehabilitation we simply believe that a senate's twenty percent above the minimum does not accurately depict the court that it indicates the court did not fully consider her tremendous potential for rehabilitation this is a young lady who we think it's undeniable that she can and will contribute to society when she's released she's shown that in numerous ways when she stood unspoken allocution she didn't say anything that was she wasn't offering excuses she simply used her time to stand express her remorse and extend  prosecutorial misconduct i'd like to address two of the instances that we discussed in the brief regarding the introduction of the unrelated weapons as well as the state's argument in closing fixating upon the victim's character and his at the state initially peppers its argument with comments about the deceit and his character the fact that he was an immigrant he was a hardworking hardworking individual name properly asked the jury to to it empathetically victim he was hardworking individual just like just like you and dive basically and then focusing on the impact that this crime had on the victim's family they discussed it you know it and initially it could have been seen as an incidental discussion is it wrong to talk about the it's not wrong to talk about the victim but not to this extent that it's fairly clear that it's it's misconduct for the you know that the prosecutor has an obligation to refrain from comments which encourage the jury to return a verdict based on emotion rather than rational deliberation is that even a possibility that it could have been these kind of motions given that it was the countability given that he was present given that he knew the weapon when into the vehicle  given that he was all of these these basically uncontested his there any possibility that she was not accountable for what occurred the question that we put to this court is not curie to look to not focus on the facts and to render its verdict based on emotions and i'm suggesting that the facts themselves were simply so clear that passion if that infected their deliberations that was improper and you know grant was entitled to a fair trial regardless of the strength of the evidence whatever it may have been here and this court has decided in numerous cases where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt we believe that the numerous instances of misconduct bringing in these weapons which were terribly inflammatory totally unconnected to the the incident and then bringing them in numerous formats presenting them to the jury and then arguing them in closing bringing in this evidence that  dissidents family but the hardship that his death inflicted upon their family this has found that yes you can mention family we're not going to we're not going to expect that juries believe that the victim exists in a vacuum without any surviving members of the family but it has time  when you take that to the point of saying not only did he have a family but they were dependent upon one another they were financially dependent upon the the victim that's where you've crossed the line and that's exactly what the state did in this case and touching upon the weapons this is a case that did not involve anything other than a shotgun and yet the state brings in explosives and knives totally unconnected to that so the event brings them in not only in their physical form they bring in photographs of these items they elicit pages of testimony describing the discovery and the introduction of it and the collection of these items and then they go on to discuss the knives in closing argument those items were undeniably prejudicial i'm not sure this court has ever found that the introduction of unconnected weapons is proper and ok it was clearly error and the state took it further in this case and in cases where this court has found it to be harmless or not not problematic where the weapon wasn't brought before the jury it was just mentioned by a police officer incidentally i thought would happen in this case the state made a calculated decision to bring in this unconnected evidence and then she use that in closing argument to support their to support their allegation that these three individuals this was a question of accountability in the state use these use these weapons not here certainly not these arguments were entirely proper we're breaking down specific regard to the matching of the victim's family with the prosecutor did was make three small statements that was simply reiterating everything that the victim defense the fan it had an issue with these arguments they should object and they should have included it in a post from motion and the bottom line is no matter how proper these arguments were even tacking on appeal goes nowhere because the defendant cannot meet  lighter fluid in the same bag i don't i don't see what that information that evidence really i would fit into your case of accountability against this individual certainly when we were trying to do we're trying to separate out the contents of the backpack from the backpack and that should not be done here as well that what the backpack you have to do it all over the backpack and start and parcel to the entire the entire clock i mean this started out as this grandiose schemes are rob first says she saw the shotgun in the backpack he says she said that after the shooting is over the shock is placed back into the book bag and once the entirety of the situation is all right and they're investigating the apartment investigators in the backpack in the kitchen with the contents that are now at issue for the school it's the people's position that everything that was in that backpack was part and parcel to the entirety of this crime because what we seem to forget here obviously that idea that they're going to rob this armored car ends with the shooting unfortunately of the victim she even testifies that had the victim not been shot that they would have continued on in this for a and that in the backpack and specifically nobody ever talks about the bottles being explosives or m doubt regarding the contents of the back one there was one statement and who took a total of thirty nine pages of closing argument when the state mentions she doesn't mention and look at these knives and looking at these exposes and they were part of this this her plan essentially what she does is she says look there's three defendants there's three nights they're dangerous she drives the analogy she's not saying that they used the knives of the united right at tied to the crime or that the knives were used to lure the victim out of the cab said i'm not she i'm not i'm not wrong after what you want write something i certainly don't think that his statement that not that long after rise to the level of abuse of discretion in this is a case where as the trial quick characterized it found that it was a classic case of man's inhumanity to man for their own benefit this is a federal crime this is a crime that was born out of a desire to just robs money and i certainly think that it's it's no it's no  let's get her childhood to not use this discretion i don't believe that and the people don't believe that eight years above the minimum is something that this defendant didn't deserve i mean the child put specifically reiterated that it considered all that everything in one state could ever amount to a structural error because if it did structural hair would simply disappear from being that sort of fear that in titles that descended to an automatic new trial regardless of the strength of the evidence that is a very very serious conclusion to reach and it is rightly a very high bar to get over we know that your honors but we do believe that in this case the numerous instances brought this case to that level where she was denied a right to fair trial but this case cited by the state people who johnson does say that i mean it's interesting that they cited it for a different reason but that that the supreme court said that family information which does not exist with an independent relationship does not fall within the kind confines of the plane or review of player view the opposite is true in this case not only with what brief mentions the state was focusing on the dependent relationship that case would trigger an objection by defense when there is no objection by defense counsel it suggests that it's all part of the evidence and it is a simply a brief or a he doesn't expect it to linger too long there's a i think it's there if you'd have all that evidence regarding the victim's character and the family that's left behind and the impact that the crime has on the family has no place in a fair trial and here the state intentionally elicited this information when they were when they were conducting their direct direct examination of the of the this is utter b s to be told you know how this you say yes there's a victim there's also the defendants to get deserving of punishment because this victim is such a such an impressive can't even we're deserving of of you know this is that there's even more deserving of you know retribution in this case because he was an immigrant who was trying to live the american dream or because he left a family behind in america and family in nigeria who are financially dependent on him and that is a problem if this were an identification or if this were a person who left right before the  killing occurred there might be a reason for you know claiming that this crossed the line but when that happens is so clear seems hard  possibility of the reasonable inference perhaps that this backpack was involved in the crime it was found four days later in elliot's apartment there was no gun in the backpack there were no shell casings in the backpack there was nothing inside of the backpack which tied to the offense and it's i know what in the backpack it was even there during the commission of the offense what was inside of it the inside of it the inside the backpack at the time during the discussion of this plan to rob the armored vehicle there's never mention of the use of explosives or knives to achieve the goal and you know th of the evidence itself you've got to beer bottles that are usually kept with ten foil to the state remove the liquid from there with your bottles for trial because it's it's not a secure steal the idea that those bottles were in this backpack and being carried through th through the this entire incident and it is simply preposterous the fluid but of the doubt it there's just simply no evidence to say that these items even if the backpack were there that these items were in that backpack they were brought in right before the jury for the sole purpose of inflaming passions to create hatred and fear and to say is as counsel says let's paint these as it especially dangerous individuals let's put a knife in the handed your meal when she was otherwise and an armed person who was standing feet away when thank you guys very much it's a very interesting case very well prepared briefs and very well prepared oral arguments very interesting it was