prison he should have received a fair trial by an impartial jury instead mr washington received a jury and he kept the ignorance of relevant law and facts and prejudiced by a lower court obviously  to represent the defendant neither that's correct or this court should reverse the lower court for three reasons first the lower court improperly denied mr washington's request a jury instructions second the court repeatedly precluded impeachment of critical state witnesses and third the courts to a sponsor objections and open in patients with defense counsel deny mr washington his right to an impartial trial or effect turning to the first point your honor so the court below abused its discretion in denying mr washington's request for two jury instructions second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter is the illinois supreme court stated in people versus jones it is well settled that as long as there is some evidence to further request a jury yes it was justified self defense however the jury could have found that it was reckless in one of two instances the face physical evidence is important in this case ronald lee was shot twice in his arm and once in his side mr washington don't tend to kill could be involuntary manslaughter yes your honor under seven twenty i'll see s five slash nine dash three and a person who unintentionally kills an individual without gospel justification commits involuntary manslaughter if his acts which has repeatedly held that it is for the trier of fact alone in this case the jury to determine whether someone's belief that he was justified is reasonable or not here mr white mr washington unequivocally testified that he did fear for his life and he did shoot in response to that fear because he believed ronald lee was going to shoot him first if the jury rejected the reasonable this of that belief it was their job to determine if they did believe that he said that was a subjective belief that it was not reasonable that second degree murder this court denied the jury the opportunity to make that decision which is in their hands along by refusing the instruction the court sided interest and before we get to them you opened up by saying that your position  why should we agree with award two reasons your honor first the case has been twice criticize since that by both people versus tony in people vs edmonson which are cases out of this court and that are more recent than anderson and secondly the case is also factually incredibly different than what we have here is different than anderson and anderson we have three state witnesses who testified that they saw the defendant essentially walk up unprovoked and shoot two people one in the  head another in the head there is no testimony of any provocation at all except for the defendant who told a completely different story here we have up to two hundred people some of the state witnesses testified that there was a massive crowd on the scene mr washington testified that there was that there were a number of people around him ronald lee who just grabbed him choked him was screaming profanities at him this is much more of a situation where there could be an unreasonable belief that anderson anderson is facts regardless of what the court thinks about the legal basis behind it turning to the second point your honour's the court room repeatedly precluded impeachment of state witnesses and it's important to know your honor this was  credibility contest between the witnesses there were all of the state's witnesses were family members of the alleged victim in this case the defense witnesses had two family members and then one impartial the only impartial eyewitness in this case was a neighbor who knew neither of the parties when the decision is based on who almost exclusively the decision of guilt or not acquittal in this case is based almost completely on who the jury believes the court should have given the defense opportunity to ask questions about the reasons that these witnesses have promoted bias an interest in testifying i should know this this is do no full review your honor because this this creates constitutional issues this speaks to mr washington's sixth amendment right to confront the witnesses against him ronald and donald lee were the two witnesses whose credibility was most at stake in this case because ronald lee was the man who deal edge the victim in this case and also the man that melvin washington testified had a gun on him that night ronald lee although the fact of his prior conviction was brought out before the jury the fact that he was on parole was not this court has repeatedly stated and most recently in locking people versus laca that the trial court should and i quote give great latitude in allowing in questioning witnesses regarding his parole status because that is relevant to his bias his motive and his interest in testifying the court  that somehow simply needs you in the extreme you know where your honor certainly the the level of his experience and the question of whether it was illegal for him to use a gun those would have been relevant to his e looking at it you just said one hundred people around and your client shot three times into what is a crowd and then he hit in fact the real victim the deceased who was significance you think that place that laid out the facts just bothered me certainly your honor the significance it's obviously extremely unfortunate that someone else died in this situation but if mr washington was justified in firing those initial shots the fact that he unfortunately that someone else died as a result is not a beautiful to him turning back to the involuntary manslaughter question though if the jury determined that it was reckless because there was a crowd around then that would have been the appropriate finding and again the jury was not able to make that determination because the judge denied them that instruction at all and so the fact that there was a crowd perhaps leans to the fact that this could be an involuntary manslaughter case rather than a first degree murder if the jury had the proper instructions your honour's turning back to ronald lee however the court also denied a lynch motion on ronald lee the supreme court in people versus lynch stated that evidence of an alleged to be in a self defense case evidence of an alleged victim's violent past is relevant to show protests to be for violence in the in the case that issue here ronald lee is a man who the defense had a witness prepared to testify that ronald lee hijacked vehicle held her hostage along with another person at gunpoint in her vehicle and then what was prepared to testify to that and the judge decided that that was not relevant certainly in the question of a seventeen year old person with no prior convictions person alleged victim who has this kind of past it would have been relevant for the jury to hear this information again ronald lee was sanitized because that information was never brought before the jury turning to plea your honor donald lee is another one of the state eyewitnesses one of the people who testified that ronald lee did not have a gun if the if the first mistrial in melbourne washington's case donald lee admitted that he'd had three or four beers and cops jails and was under the influence that day at the second's trial at the trial were here before donald lee testified that he had two beers at most and was not under the influence your honor that's clear impeachment when defense counsel attempted to impeach the court sue a sponsor objected and not only prevented counsel from going into it but said in front of the jury there's no impeachment you know there's no impeachment donnelly also had a drug problem he admitted to having undergone drug drug treatment and the recent past and at the mistrial he admitted that he'd had and i quote alcohol problem on and off for quite a while none of that was allowed in this trial they were  defense counsel is not allowed to question mr lay to impeach him on his at alcohol use the day of the incident he was not allowed to ask him about his alcohol abuse problems and he was not allowed to ask him about his drug abuse or drug treatment in people versus triplett the supreme court condemned a trial where the judge's rulings expose the jury to a small portion of reality that's what happened here honors the jury was exposed to at best a small portion of reality with respect to some of the state's eye witnesses and because of that the judge would essentially knowingly or not obstructed the jury's understanding of both the law and the facts and deny mr washington his constitutional right to cross examine the witnesses finally your honor the judges to respond to objections and commentary did serve to prejudice the jury in this case the cumulative effect of all of the judge's commentary in a situation where the evidence was close in the witnesses the jury was already denied understanding of who the witnesses were really really were and what their background was in this situation the judge's comments become all the more relevance and i'll just bring up a few in front of the jury after defense witness topeka washington testified the judge stated in from the jury i don't know why we called her as a witness the judge said there's no impeachment you know there's no impeachment the judge interrupted defense counsel and called during the middle of one of counsel's cross and called for a recess and turned to the jury and said i'm sorry this isn't moving as fast as we'd like and just and that sent the jury home for the day your honor at three thirty pm on a thursday after the state had had four days just your honor it's a problem when the defense is treated very differently and when the impatient is aimed only at the defense the perhaps the most relevant infer the most telling information here with so that respect is that after the state had counsel responded that he couldn't and he had upped is many as eight witnesses to call in the remaining hour and a half and that wouldn't be feasible the judge says i don't care we're finishing today why can't you finish today it was in your yes it is your honor in section three b i believe your honor after that happened the judge the parties returned the defense had approximately an hour to an hour and a half to put on its case in chief and then the judge knowing that defense counsel could not finish was not finished with its case in chief still asked in from the jury defense are we done when the defense counsel responded no the judge turned to the jury and said unfortunately this is taking longer than i expected and so the judge allowed the defense to keep putting the case yes your honor but the overall the impression it imparted is that this is taking too long why don't we just finish this there's no need for the defense's case to see pressure that's the impression from your hands your honor i would i would aimed again only a defense counsel never at the prosecutor's the cumulative effect of that was an improper impression thank you you're just briefly shortly before the trial the defendant became aware of some sort of a yes or another family argument if you want to comment briefly and absolutely on a very quickly the trial was scheduled to begin on a friday that morning i'm not in the record is unclear as to what time but that morning the state tendered police report indicating that one of the state's witnesses and twine lee had ben was a suspect in a shooting incident against mr washington's girlfriend's the mother of into finally was the initial car accident victim in this case and one of the people who testified about the shooting incident and finally as the man who in according to police reports was suspected of just a couple weeks earlier shooting at the defendant's girlfriend this is relevant because it was a family feud particularly your honor certainly the court could have allowed just a one working day extent continuance that's all the defense was requesting the court tonight we were given time response was given some time the defense was given it's unclear again from the re usually try to the trial but as depends how so when he became aware of the incident and his response was on march twenty first which is approximately two weeks prior to the commencement of friday however defense counsel stated that he was engaged in another matter which he knew would not be proceeding until march on march thirty first which was still five days prior to the commencement of defendant second trial during that time defense counsel stated that he had not investigated the matter even though he was aware it chiefly involved the mother of the defendant's child shiling parker additionally defense counsel was requesting a continuance until the following monday in order to investigate the incident however the only actions which chiefly occurred on that friday were jury selection nothing would have precluded defense counsel from investigating the incident over the weekend and representing monday had some other information been found motions in limine it were still pending and opening statements had not been given in the trial house i'm really interested by the jury instruction issue could you address  which it stated that in this case defendant failed to present any evidence of the existence of an unreasonable belief in self defense less the judge saw a reason to give the self these fancy instruction and we had read them absolutely the trial court gave the the gun that ronald lee possessed prior to the shooting he described the gun as a revolver with a wooden handle he said he saw it in ronald lee's waistband and he grabbed ronald lee's arm prior to shooting him to prevent him from aiming the weapon at him this is not a situation in which any reasonable jury could have done based on the defendant's testimony if you possess an unreasonable belief in self defense as such there was no evidence presented of the mitigating factor and the jury instruction based on second degree murder in an unreasonable we believe presenting a simultaneous defense of insanity and self defense and contrary to defense counsel's argument and anderson what they found unstated was that he approached the second shooting victim they struggled over a gun that was contained within a paper bag and then he shot the second pick them using the gun that was in the paper the first victim with the gun that was in the paper back so the trial court found in anderson the because the defendant did not testify that there was an unreasonable belief based on him hear edmonson luckett and tony all of which are from the first district two thousand to two thousand and three saying when i mentioned before a black letter law you have a self defense instruction and you must have a second degree instruction they reiterated in a footnote to a self defense and a voluntary manslaughter now second degree murder instruction should be given when any evidence is presented showing the defense subjective belief that the use of force was necessary so if do so what are we to do i believe that's chiefly because i'm in like it which is the case the supreme court case which begins this whole discussion on how the self defense and second degree murder basically to choose sides of the same coin and they cannot and in like it the language states that they cannot conceive of a situation in which he would give self defense and deny the second degree murder instruction but we're maintaining that this is that situation there is no evidence unreasonable belief presented in this case much like anderson and the i p i has not been changed to state that when one does receive a instruction in self defense in a murder case that so such the second degree murder instruction based on an on reasonable belie defendant's behavior which is the question that is before the jury should they choose to believe that the defendant acted in self defense they must then determine whether that actually was reasonable resulting in a not guilty verdict or on reasonable resulting in a verdict of second degree murder as he said was it was eyes of the jury however none of these prior conviction for aggravated vehicular hijacking and possession of rolled substance were properly put before the jury ronald lee was presented as a convicted felon the fence is arguing that the poor old status was relevant to show that ronald lee had a bias as to whether or not it would be legal for him to possess the weapon at the time of the offense because it would have constituted a parole violation so therefore he had a greater motive to lie to the police about his possession of a weapon however the people maintain that it would that he had three or four beverages to drink and at this trial he testified there were two beyond that there was no need to continue into the specifics of how many beverages he had to write down of they did not identify defendant of the shooter  that it was presented that he had been drinking prior to the ns incident i was his appearance on the scene but as to the specific nature it was also shown that he previously testified he had three or four and on this occasion one a chair honestly impeachment a complete ass to that and the jury were it was properly before the jury that he had been drinking there's a difference between drinking one or two and being totally blitzes and yes there  difference however he didn't testify that he was totally blitzed at the first trial either i'm down the believe he was before the jury as having consumed alcohol and the date of the incident additionally families drug addiction status was unclear and the trial  offer proof was not offered by defense counsel other than to say the dom lee was incarcerated in may of two thousand and seven however there was no foundation laid as to the basis of that knowledge or had done of the actually denied it what was going to be given as offer of an order to impeach that statement therefore the trial her properly curtailed any questioning asked donald these drug addiction status at the time of the events or at the time of trial which would have been relevant to this probability at the time he was testifying evidence however he fails to acknowledge that the numerous objections and have been denial of sidebar requests occurred over the span of a ten day trial five days of testimony average of eight hours of testimony per day specifically the instances point jurors on the case one of the jurors became sick during one of the days of trial and testimony had to be ended early the time when the trial court interrupted defense counsel cross examination of the witness in order to send the jury obligation of one of the jurors who was not able to attend on the wednesday morning because in our college the appointment of her mother's and that trip out of town that was planned for that friday the trial with interrupted in these flocks of time due to the previous oppositions of the jurors repeated comments by the trial court as to the timing and that situation had to do more thoroughly with giving the jury overview as to the top concern thank you brief addresses it very well could you in three sentences because i think justice quinn please the court i have just one point on rebuttal harmless error cannot apply to deny jury instructions or fams all your honor the second district last year in people versus plan stated pointed out that where record improperly deny the jury instruction the harmless tara test should not be given because one test is subsumed in the other the question of whether a jury instruction could have been denied inches on whether any juror could have found a specific for example in this case involuntary manslaughter or second degree the same test applied to harm applies to harmless error when or whether any try to effect could have reached a different conclusion were one test missed them sumed in the other there should not it a differentiation should not be made if there were t