after injury trial and listens to forty five years in prison in this case the victim here was shot to death in the apartment on the third floor of a building in joliet peter sanchez was out the door right before the shooting  reading knowledge that the victim would be at the apartment building nor was there any physical evidence to connect them on to the apartment where the sheep herder's whatever inferences the jurors could have drawn from the evidence in this case you don't actually have to draw any because the state's witness christian lopez gave the state everything he needed to convict some horrible lopez but only lopez identifies a wrong as the person driving the car lopez but only lopez his credibility in the eyes of the jurors but she doesn't counsel the two crucial tactics to employ the first thing was making sure the jurors knew that lopez testified under a grant of use immunity which would have seriously weakened his credibility the second thing was making sure that the jurors were instructed on how to analyze an accomplice when this is testimony specifically that they're closely scrutinized pursue look this is destiny and if you would suspicion counsel failed you both of immunity that who has received the stain on use that it was reasonable for counsel not to tell the jurors he had you some unity because it could have made him more credible not less credible all have been i double edged sword on his attorney started to open the door i'm questioning him about that because then obviously the state is that you know if you lie about anything you're a you know you that's it there is no they don't have to gather any additional evidence they don't have to talk with the other people they just charge him with perjury they present the transcript from the previous trial and that's it i guess overall what i'm hearing too is that you know evidence to charge my client with this crime and counsel all conceded that some ronald was there in closing argument while at the same time weaving there's not enough evidence to convict him of there was no there's no inconsistency either legally or participated in this part own with this argument is just meritless there is enough evidence that the test here is not whether the state could easily or successfully convict him of the crime to test for giving instructions whether there probable cause to believe that the woman is participating in the offense that's it probable cause there is probable cause here i don't want to go through any of that have time to go through all the things that gave the city probable cause but i think it's isn't probable cause to charge him with all right so the arguments of the contrary that there is no evidence will cause was involved think his merits i mean there is enough for the state to charge him if the state were inclined to charge the state was not so inclined because it needed his testimony and that's why it didn't charge him the state also argues with its with respect instruction that giving it would have confused the jurors in this argument seems to be based on the wording of the instruction which starts you know when a witness says he was involved in the commission of the finds with the defendant the problem for this argument is that the case was clear the witness doesn't actually have to say i just want to say i was involved in in fact he can literally say i was not involved in this he can explicitly deny his involvement and the defendant will still be entitled to the instruction if there is probable cause to believe that witness was involved oh the   is there enough just based on this i don't know maybe there is maybe there is a but that isn't the only of it after as somebody who was shot and yes and again the sunni world as is telling the truth when he because it would basically suggest that there was evidence some was involved you know the instruction doesn't give the jurors new information about the case instruction tells the jurors what to do with information that's already there specifically it tells them to look at the accomplice witness's testimony give you a suspicious lee to closely scrutinize it even if you might otherwise seem credible so there isn't anything new to comes out of the instruction that isn't already part of the case when you ask his accomplice or not the effect of and various legal points that were never actually presented to the jury in what the defense counsel's near the case argue to the jury what's the issue really here is whether counsel was range of actions that follow in this year's trial strategy decisions that defense counsel gets to make one way or another and the decisions made in this things were not unreasonable regarding use immunity the state's argument is based on defendant's arguments might think that maybe but what defense counsel could have just as easily if not more easily thought was that here is my thing oh he he faces prosecution and so he's prosecution by testifying because that would give him a motive to lie protect himself and he didn't just incriminate himself in his testimony oh i only said was i mean i didn't take the gun he forced me out of the car and we got out of the the munity because of exactly what he said but that when they have an argument that almost makes giving that instruction on the subsidy because you want to make sure that jury recognizes that hired sanchez and sanctions alone committed the murder and kind of that these two may have never even got into the building so his argument is that they're not really differently situated they're both just there and so if at most we have some video sho lopez leaning over in the car well the video shows the defendant reaching into the hood of the car getting the gun and putting the gun under the hood which is much stronger than just the reaching for motion so he's trying to say they're similar and he's not going to want to say on that just at the reaching is accountable for this crime because of just the reaching his accountable then surely they are treating the gun from under the hood and being there is going to be sufficient  jury that lopez wasn't an accomplice and to find it wasn't i that sanchez and sanchez alone was the one that committed the murder and so the instruction says when a witness says he was involved in the commission of a crime with the defend argued to the judge in that context one thing are going to the jurors was separate so so it would have been inconsistent with that strategy it was made outside the context of the jurors and not not in front of the a promise was made you testified today and we won't prosecute you for a crime in this case you see using that your testimony here the jury has to know about that there's no there is no way you can leave that out it's not reasonable strategy if you need to destroy this guy's credibility if you need to take the legs out from under his testimony you can't leave out that he came to a deal with the state again as there is no authority for the proposition that this use immunity would have hurt that it would have made him a stronger witness this state doesn't cite any authority for this and i'm not aware of any general proposition from all the case ought as you cut a deal with the state to testify against a person all things being equal you become less credible it doesn't mean that the jury absolutely has to reject your testimony but it does mean your attorney has to bring that up at trial he can't leave it out own in terms of whether this is inconsistent with the defense theory via i don't know what else to say about this i mean defense counsels whether or not counsel can think of sanchez acted alone in still acknowledge that there's enough evidence to charge people with the current here and there being enough evidence to charge someone with a crime here means that certain people have incentives to tell certain stories it affects their credibility because they have a motive all too wide to avoid not just conviction of a crime but prosecution itself which imposes huge huge costs on the person charged with a crime particularly in a murder case i'm there simply just no inconsistency with the defense theory of the case that peter sanchez acted alone and telling the jurors that lopez has use immunity there isn't a conflict the reference to the john that the brunel takes out from under the hood of the car there is no gun in that video ok the only way we know there is a gun there for sure is from low clouds and only if we believe him otherwise it's a maybe the jurors can make that inference in conjunction with all the evidence in the case but it's a much weaker inference when you don't have someone telling you that it was a gun what was comes in he says it was a garment it drastically changes the state's case that's why they don't want to go to trial without this guy that's why they give this guy you see you need you to testify and that's what counsel has to tell the jurors and ask the court to instruct the jurors to view this accomplice witness's testimony with suspicion and be closely scrutinized and that's why