would you like to call that case please need mutual combat or this isn't something bence case it's not a second degree murder case as involuntary manslaughter so we know that the law allows basically for a deliberate act under involuntary manslaughter that up from the comb the opening night was this are obviously very severe but we know we have very little evidence of what actually happened and the strongest evidence of what happened is these external injuries and so tak the medical examiner did testify that there was no evidence of external injuries in response to questioning by the judge and back in the one nine hundred ninety eight report and additionally you know the state didn't introduce any photographs of any injuries any from the evidence for the codefendant so that several times and even with regard to the one statement that you might be able to say something about if you look in the context of a total statement by the judges it's not say what you say addressing the defense counsel's argument that the beating was not proven to be brutal because of the absence of extra no injuries and he said that's a good argument i'm rejecting it because what we know here is that the  don't have evidence of any severely forceful blows is a very we don't really know actually how long the incident took but by all accounts was pretty quick and you know whatever transpired in the short amount of time was fenton that he was considering the fact he said just the opposite over and over and over throughout the trial beginning as the beginning of the trial so that he understood that what evidence would be to one another and  absence of extra injuries not the co dependence counsel's argument of extra injuries and this isn't a case where we need to infer that the judge considered inadmissible evidence in the record he's saying you know that's a good argument about the extra injuries but whatever comes what really tipped the judge here was the stomping the judge said but because the the these teenagers these kids stop this man that i find out the eating sufficiently brutal to prove know that is extremely prejudicial and warrants a new trial on its own i mean just given the facts was inadmissible hearsay i understand the judge said he wouldn't consider it but it's in the record that he did you know it could have been a lapse of memory the fenton stopped punching his father when he saw the bleeding here it's the same thing they got help to me but he did it again that this he walked away didn't get any help me to call the police he didn't check on him he didn't do anything that that your honor for involuntary manslaughter with that's an adult defendant at the same time we have two kids who are by their nature are less culpable and more likely to act in a reckless manner and the fact that they didn't disregard the consequences of their apparently the new you said he walked away when he knew he was moving though and that's a that's a pretty bad beating and when there is no the man is defenseless he didn't respond at all that any of the but it's also not required that he defend himself i mean this is a you know i'm not trying to but usually it's like a high school he said i don't see that at all this is that high school this is going after somebody stopping or picking up punching their our own own damages severe lacerations abrasions bruises we have none of that none of that here so and we also have an alternate explanation and a very unusual  manner of death we know that the scene landed face first and there is testimony that he would have trouble plotting blood based on his severe alcoholism so this is similar to he did he died thirteen years later and the medical examiner found it was related to the injuries but that that is not a really foreseeable result of kicking him punching somebody that they would die thirteen years later man was also in and out of hospitals for twelve years and suffered infections based on the medical equipment he never recovered from the beating and conscious right he never came to the king conscious at all an with that was somewhat skewed i mean his wife testified that he was able to communicate she thought she thought right equally she thought there was also testimony that he was i believe taken off from a ventilator and was communicating before his release from the him yes this this stupid thing that you know my client did a lot of them things are stupid but that doesn't make the right but it also doesn't mean that they knew quite the extent of the damage they are causing i mean we have reckless kids who some harm or bodily harm is different than great bodily harm great bodily harm or murder needs to be pretty severe harm the next generation lead to death that it is but it's not it's not a typical situation is pretty unusual case it's not often i've been doing this for ten or eleven years i've certainly never seen a case where somebody dies as a result of a coma induced by punching and kicking thirteen years later it's just it's an unusual fact situation nineteen years old yes a teenager your honor our allies in court just two thousand and eighteen so like it well he's still a teenager and he's nineteen that's that's a teenager perhaps not a juvenile under to see that i mean the importance one of the important things about the extra injuries is that it's evidence to the people involved the codefendant the defendant of what type of injury they're causing the question is they know they're causing great bodily harm or de expert said that she was unable to this is a quote quantify either from her external examination or her internal examination or her abuser's records how many injuries particularly injuries were sustained by mr mann course of the record you just quoted this is the medical examiner's testimony about her op copsey which occurred thirteen years after the end she says she looked at the records right right so she was unable that's what she said well the judge actually specifically her yes and that's was her answer that's what i was reading she said she didn't see any in there and she might have missed something i'm saying there's different portion of the record in which she says she doesn't recall seeing any evidence of extra injuries and then it was just a sister's unable to find anything needs to present evidence of x you know a severe beating which is typically done through proof of extra injuries or you know there's nothing that says you can't have a proof by internal injuries without any proof whether or if his head split open in response to one of these bloggers and we saw it rain man on i how would we know that kicking him in the head would ultimately lead to his death but that was the issue that trial judge him to decide if we if this was a jury trial and you were arguing that the trial judge erred in not giving the in voluntarily and on jury manslaughter instruction we have a different but here it was the trial judge who had to decide was this reckless or was it intentional he found intentional and i think what i hear you saying is he had to find it was reckless because there wasn't which ended up killing him you also beat him in addition to that but the court found that that was not really forseeable naturally forseeable consequences of stepping on somebody's snack and same regard i understand the punching kicking somebody is likely to cause harm i mean it is this isn't again these kids aren't in the sydney commended for their their actions this is something that they shouldn't have done it was wrong but it was not practically certain or they could not have been testimony about stomping that was not admitted in this case to come to that conclusion but again that the law is that the senate state of mind can be showing by other factors than just where you're seeing the external injuries for example a character defendant's acts the nature seriousness of the victim centuries and if you look at those in addition to whatever else you would look at the judge could absolutely come to the conclusion that he came to that this was something that they knew great bodily injury and in fact i mean why else would they continue to do that when the man playing defense and not reacting well the evidence was that they left i you know there's no place in illinois where kicking and punching that didn't cause external injuries was found to be a knowing murder you know state doesn't cite one and and i certainly didn't find any this would be different than every case i saw in illinois where kicking and punching his life to finding no murder as opposed to recklessness and you know i do think that the age of the the defendants in this case is something that an adult so i think we have inherently less responsible people doing something that is generally considered an action that would not result in and forgive me for being the grammar place but when the defendant made a statement to police he said that he was kicking him also and said that he stopped kicking him when he was no longer moving kicking is an active her so that implies more than one kick the injuries of the victim also suggest that there was more than one kick the injuries included blunt head trauma and the medical examiner testified that that was noted in the physical assessment which suggests that so they can see the scrolling while swelling and i think mr randall is swelling happens after the fact when you're kicking somebody they don't immediately swell up and so because we didn't see  broken bones and whatever how would we know god i would suggest that these are two young men one thousand and seventeen they have jobs they understand consequences they're in they have some common experience and we moved the when we look at the common experience of everyone you protect your head when there could be an injury we have motorcycle helmets we have football helmets we have boxers who wear headgear to protect the head so when you're kicking someone in the head it's just common examiner explained that a sharing injury occurs when there's blunt force that causes the cells to be sure to part so that speaks to the number of objects because there had to be i would suggest more than one to cause the victim suffered from severe brain damage and never had any substantial coverage from his injuries his wife testified that from the time of the incident until he passed away he never regained consciousness he breathed through a trick to he was fed through a feeding tube he had to place a limited from his body through a catheter and in her heart she believed that he was blinking but he was not able to go to a rehabilitation center because he was unable to communicate that speaks to the severity of these injuries going back to the defendant's knowledge of what they were doing this man was bleeding from was injured when he fell but also contradicts that is the medical examiner's review of the post mortem brain exam the report indicated that he had swelling in the orbital frontal lobe which is the area above the buckle contact is more likely to bump into the ground and not fall directly down but if there was an injury from falling straight down that would have been indicated i'm suggesting by the bruising across the frontal the kicks seem to have been uncle and that's the difference when you stop and kick when you're bragging to your uncle about how you beat a fellow or a rival gang member who argued with you in front of other people you say stop when you're talking to the police about what you did to a man who is at that time in the hospital suffering from severe head injuries you say i kicked him and that's the difference because there's no functional difference in this case where he stomped him or kicked him or nudged him with his foot this man had a brain his brain was sheared he never looking at the judge's statement about the stomping he was not making a finding that any one person kicked or stopped the victim he was not making a finding that defendant was accountable when he said talked about accountability he said defendant is accountable for this man's acts not for his statement that we stopped him and when the judge was discussing the use of the words time he immediately indicated where he where he you know found that word where in the testing he found that he found in different assessment the and that shows that he was singling out that questions from the support we would ask you a from the defendant's conviction thank you m it was a characterization to the uncle but it doesn't make any difference in that a kick in the stamp and the other saw the say and that's what he took account if you know this because i could use the word stop wasn't using that in specifically but it it has no effect that that he that those words had been used and i was not against your client i understand that aspect of the argument i would just say that a stamp is different than a kick and that that was what the judge actually considered and the question is not whether your student died of injuries caused by the defendants the question is whether the defendants would have known that what they did was practically certain to cause death or great bodily harm and the nature of the incident the use of bare fists and no weapons short incident is not the type of nature under jones and