person shot victim in this case twenty awaits and twenty seven years later that was a cold case investigation witnesses were interviewed the trial consisted of number with the school approximately seven that mano as being the shooter in this case the reasons for not testifying or at least the reasons expressed in court were not testifying and were not talking to the police initially because they almost all  to get involved as to the former the but there was a simulation a trial that the after of a search in records of the chicago police department there was actually no mafia control but the and it has everything to do with this case and the number nine is the number of witnesses who stated that either they saw  it because there were eight people who did identify history as much as either being involved in the shooting the problem in this case is that because of this that would standing all of this is twenty seven years i mean these people came forward at least were brought forward twenty seven years if there is inconsistency is with what they said and there was in the prejudice was palpable during this trial i mean th so well we basically have taken the position and take the position that it was other than these identifications are in the statements that were fingerprints there were no gun there was no gun there was nothing here other than a group of people who somehow talk anymore he is in the mafia you kill her family no that's true none of that but that does not belie that that is what she was told as a child of thirteen she said best she is all she said  record what she said in the record was that she was in the alley playing rodriguez says car with his dog and saw the dish and then shoot your i shoot  if in fact the case was so high because of the number of these witnesses why would prosecutor who was a very good prosecutor do what he did there was constant misstatements of the facts there was if to every one of those paragraphs it's overwhelming and we don't and you'll see our argument there but i like this just say one thing because they have a lot of evidence it doesn't mean they can do anything they want and it's just simple as that there is ever have to area after airing this trial i'm a trial lawyer challenge here today it's the use of that evidence in closing argument therefore the admissibility of evidence of the use of it during the course of the trial there is nothing wrong with it and it's not being reviewed here today in terms of using it in closing argument it was probably before the court unchallenged and the state's use of that was based on the record there was there was evidence in the record the horse was afraid to do what her father told her at the time of the shooting reference to an attorney and as soon as the state mentioned the attorney there was an objection it was sustained the jury was immediately instructed to not consider day out that that was improper the state up their argument the jury was again instructed that that was an improper comment that they shouldn't consider it and then before the jury started to deliberate they were provided with instructions that told them the closing arguments are not evidence and they any argument not based on the evidence should be disregarded think it was simply they are of course they did we have to presume that they do that unless there's something else in the record that shows that they did not you presume that they followed the instructions in the case in terms of the comment about willie that was absolutely invited during his closing argument counsel argued they assumed i was in kill or they do just two descriptions i didn't fit nobody saw the murder nobody saw any shit saw the defendant shoot him the witnesses lied they started this is a rumor and now suddenly there are crimes witnesses the response that was well somebody did come forward that simply is not true that they just picked you out of nowhere that they focused on you even though they had a different description that simply was not true and people were entitled to respond to that in terms of error in fact in this entire trial it simply did not happen this was a good trial it was a long trial there were excellent attorneys on both sides as the judge repeatedly sad great attorneys for the dependent great attorneys for the state the judge had control of his courtroom he sustained a press and objections when he needed to provide instructions to the jury when he needed to this is not a case of error also if you look at defendant's brief you only raises other than the person which is cumulative your we're talking about four issues here that is not infecting the entire trial keeping in mind that there was nothing wrong of the mafia evidence and that issue is not pending before the court here today unless you have any questions from curiosity th ose witnesses who testified that they worked for bella pizza eight nine years after this and that this crime were they working for the defendant and i was eight or nine become out there they will find that i mean they were afraid of this mafia person allegedly throughout their testimony but did it come out in the record that he was still there and they were still working for him for a man hears i have to leave there  indication in the record that was still there said again i believe there's indication in the record that he was still there for some of that time and i understand he started another a pizza place but as to whether he was there on a daily basis or he was there for the entire eight nine years no but he was there for some of the time but that was a piece of evidence that was before the jury the jury heard back and they were able to assess that information i do believe that immediately after the shooting he was not there for a while were repeated gross improprieties they were close the balance cases this is one incomplete comment because it was cut off the soon as the word attorney came out it was never repeated again there were instructions to the jury repeatedly so our strongest case is the fact that it is not automatically reversible just because you mention an attorney and in this case the court went above and beyond to make sure that any your or any prejudice was taken care of through instruction