well thanks we're going to give you each twenty minutes and then you'll have chance for revival tent if we need some more time will stretch it some so with that care williams didn't get a fair trial and you didn't get a fair trial because of the things that happened during opening and closing arguments this morning and to focus on what happened at the end of the trial first in rebuttal and i take you back a little bit first struck that is the  shot and according to the state that was the their death was the impetus for this revenge killing so the prosecutor told them told the jury seven times that williams was friends with these two individuals but they never presented any evidence of this friendship in fact they never presented any evidence that williams even knew these two individuals this evidence was or this this argument was so improper because they highlighted a personal connection between will hands and dukes and tommy williams that they're presenting evidence of and this personal connection gives williams a personal motive that wasn't present based on that evidence at trial this relationship this link again it was so important to the state though because the only one in this trial that has a personal motive based on the evidence is straight the state's star witness and so these unsupported comments by the prosecutor that williams was friends with these two individuals is an attempt to give williams a person a motive but that's went to a basketball game minute field called straight and asked him to bring a gun saying that they were scared dupes never brought a gun and that was the night that exact straight never brought a gun and that was the night that dukes and it up murdered by gangster disciple not asking i don't know your honor i just know that they they didn't even try to elicit this testimony but they made a significant commotion about it in opening argument mentioning friendship seven times that's that's a strong theme for the prosecutor for the state the state needed the jury to believe straight's version of the shooting over williams version of the shooting in order to obtain williams conviction even though there was gunshot residue on streets hands it was his guns that were you just used in the shooting was a convicted felon  and the strongest one of the strongest personal motive to do this shooting straight was offered a sweetheart deal from the state fifteen years percent for conspiracy which was an uncharged offense in this case in fact he gets out next year when he was arrested straight gave multiple statements to the police none of which became the basis for his trial testimony after ten months in jail state goes to the prosecutor and asked for a deal asked to testify against minna field and straight closest evidence just to play devil's advocate here are the closest evidence that the state has for that is the gang specialist said that there tends to be a code of silence among gang members specifically though the gang specialist did not say that that every time a gay member snitches or flips that they become a marked man no one testified that straight was a marked man that's very important here though and again the state never asked the state never even tried to elicit this testimony the state never said asked straight are you threat were you threatened are you afraid are you worried straight start straight went to the prosecutor and asked to testify against minna field and asked again to testify against williams there's just no evidence that he was actually marked or threatened but was it a process and after destroying straight in terms of what he was alive and everybody agrees he was a liar lied about his mother and guns other things well that then they'd be rehabilitated him in order to make him more convenient and better witness a trial i think that's what constituted was trying to do but the prosecutor there's a proper way to do this in an improper way to do that and here the prosecutor did that by by saying that he was a much man despite the fact that there was no evidence of this and saying that a for the credibility of straight let's talk about the shooting itself williams was shoot correct shooting up to being a gangster disciples the terminal event williams was there straight williams and if field were all in the car according to williams testimony he was in the front passenger seat of the car it was a party day is drinking on days that he was drunk she was in the sleep it seat was a klein back as shown by the photos he said he was size or he that he wasn't shooting he was driving and even though he had gunshot residue on his hands that williams was in the front passenger seat and in a field in the back seat were shooting out the passenger side window car also when he did speak to the police the first statement he gave the closest to the shooting he says that he was looking at midfield in the backseat because many field had a gun with a laser sight he told the police right away a marked man and vouching for streets credibility was so prejudicial because it tipped the balance that tipped the credibility away from williams and toward straight based on non evidence and things that they didn't question the witnesses about they didn't present take everything straight said for the truth right away quite the prosecutor we checked it out the prosecutor told the jury we checked it out four separate times despite repeated defense objection even though he didn't say it i believe the prosecutor use of the term we hear is particularly problematic it places the integrity of the state's attorney's office behind the credibility of the state's star witness it tells the jury that we the prosecutor other prosecutors the credibility because we checked it out but doesn't schaffer and some of the supporting cases in favor of the defense really go to the issue that it's the state or the prosecutor or the officer saying it's based on that person's experience not based on any evidence to corroborate the state's case not based on any research or investigation that was performed but it was based on for instance and schaefer was based on the i believe the prosecutor weak i was unable to find a case that was exactly on point where the prosecutor had said repeatedly we checked it out but in shafer it the prosecutor is saying you know that this individual is  trustworthy because of his years of experience that he understands this and then the way that similar and this is the case this case the prosecutor is saying we checked it out back in january twenty ten when this individual came in we checked it out but i is what he said at the police station was sustained by what we found that night when we searched his residence the third one which is i don't think he's the most stellar person but i think he told the truth said the second and the third are arguably ok and the second is the one that says what he said was sustained but was by what we found in his residence so it's it correlates to corroborating evidence isn't that exactly the situation here and technically the  ok it only found the first statement to be in error no your honor this is different because in that case the second statement was based on the evidence that was presented at trial and that's the big distinction here here the prosecutor is saying that back in january twenty ten we checked it out we don't know if the evidence or what the prosecutor did back in january of two thousand and ten was the evidence that was presented to the jury arguably it was but we have no way of knowing and more importantly the jury has no way of knowing when the danger with these comments is that you can't you can't tell the jury that you have some sort of test to determine whether you could put out an honest witness it's up for the jury to determine the credibility of a witness based on what happens at trial so there's nothing to find the f b i testimony to to whether or not that actually occurred and that's what the problem the state was referring to there is nothing explaining what we checked out like what evidence they looked at or how they checked it out in this long section of argument from the prosecutor the prosecutor does discuss the phone records and the f b i evidence that's presented at trial but it doesn't make it clear that that's the same evidence that we checked it out and that's the problem again he's talking about checking it out back in january twenty ten not what happened at trial had the prosecutor i do you only about the evidence  that's that's ok that's proper the proper mean that's what happened in the state's opening closing argument they argued that straight was credible based on the evidence that was presented at trial they could have done that again but they didn't instead everybody told four times the prosecutor says we checked it out we didn't just take everything straight said for truth immediately we talked it out but again this is really prejudicial because of two things one the strength of isn't denying that he was in the car at the time of the shooting when he testified he was there that he was walking out when the shooting happened that's he's not denying that but in this case  checked it out even though they're near the discussion of the cell phone and the tower evidence it's not is that the same thing he's not saying we checked it out based on the cell tower evidence saying back in january twentieth when he came in we checked it out and which checked it out it's beyond just saying i believe he's telling the truth it's we know he's telling the truth we've checked it out date other prosecutors we it's the integrity of the state's attorney's office that they're biased witness who's got a sweetheart deal from the state has gunshot residue on his hands that's given a bazillion many statements to the police and you have a suspect witness cook man who says he was high and he his first statement  misconduct state need of the jury to believe straight again the arguments the errors in rebuttal argument well preserved and so in a case where the errors are respect to the facts and circumstances beyond the case within a particular case that comes people versus belk nap the defendant cites people versus the appellate court opinion in his reply brief however the only spring court reversed that decision in and fourteen on the very issue of whether or not the evidence was closely balanced and says you have to take a commonsense approach to the evidence this case is not just about angelo straight versus the defendant there was a corroborating physical evidence that supporting the initial straits testimony and contradicted the defendant's tells testimony conveniently the defendant doesn't talk today defense attorney doesn't talk today about the shell casings and the physical evidence that was recovered at the scene  off it doesn't matter your honour's what that evidence showed the defendant testified williams whole version of his events was that he's in the car he's sleeping he's not the shooter his hands are over his face and that straight reached out reached across and fired out that window the suicide did williams say that he had been drinking or had marijuana and was sleeping at the time of the shooting and was awakened by the shooting you know he said that he was sleeping he had been drinking and  that he stops in the field in defendant shoot he starts to take off when you feel to stop stop stop wait wait wait and they shoot some more physical evidence shows that their work coming ten to twelve cased  casings i think maybe nine or ten casings found playing in front of that where they stopped to shoot two houses down there's another nine to ten cases that are found on the street is straight and the defense attorney argued in closing he wasn't so sure about that he argues in closing that well you know if the if straight had been doing the shooting you know the state didn't prove that they didn't you know get out of the car so the defendant could you know shake off the street things that were in his lap you know all of these states and have to prove that because the case down on the street supports what angela straight said occurred that evening liar he lied to the state space and the state put him on anyway so what the what the response to that was and we can't comment on the actual straits credit building we can comment on the credibility of the witness is the physical evidence we checked it out we don't just take what someone comes in without we just don't come in we just don't take what someone comes in under those circumstances and just really know we put them on the witness stand we checked it out we corroborated that evidence here's the cooperating physical evidence we checked it out it supports straits credibility and that was test that was a comment directed towards straits credibility a proper comment for the prosecutor to make during closing argument or in response to what the defense argued repeatedly and i would argue in fact it was it was a comment on what the evidence was and how the evidence supported in cooperate angela straights testimony the jury knew that they he got a deal they knew that but when you look at the two testimonies  he admitted you know he had a reason why he admitted you know he didn't want to get his mother in trouble obviously and that didn't necessarily go into the credibility of what he testified to occurred on the night of the offense and in the four months prior  it doesn't necessarily go to that i would argue i think that you know again the jury was aware that the jury assessed his credibility the prosecutor's comments in closing were not they were not improper and they were  that that conviction was reversed was because the prosecutor the park quote had a problem with a prosecutor saying i think that witness told the truth and that portion of the prosecutor's closing argument the poet quote where they talked about the evidence sustaining what that particular witness had said the court found that that was not problematic in people versus pope and i would point out this is not a case where the prosecutor's going i think straight is telling the truth i think straight a student my humble opinion you're out there in there basically saying no respectfully i disagree that that would be that you can take it that far people first as pope says that unless there is a makes an explicit if the jury has to infer up from the prosecutor's comments that he's personally vouching for that witness is credibility that's that's not that's not a problem that's not a rony as the prosecutor has to explicitly say you know we believe i think you can believe them and you're those magic many of those what you would call magic words it's not enough  in the context of this case and and i agree with you there was a bad period of time where prosecutors were were saying and doing outrageous things that that was a problem in the appellate court this is not one of those situations this is not a case a again i think it's a good a comment on the strength of the evidence supporting the cooperated evidence the supports the credibility of this witness he's not saying you know we checked it out means we when we found evidence there is evidence here is the evidence you heard the evidence the evidence cooperates what this witness sad and don't believe that it's that situation in this particular case with respect to the comments  snitch campaign there is a code of silence amongst all the gang member state gang members don't cooperate with police for the fear of retribution from their own gang or other gangs it is that evidence that was sufficiently formed the basis  mean there was first of all to with respect to that comment there was no objection to that comment it wasn't properly preserved it is forfeited in front of this court and again under player analysis that bennett hasn't sustained his burden of showing that it should be considered as easily been synonymous with the term of a fellow gang member look at the relationship if it was a gang member for fifteen years is twenty eight since he's thirteen one of the witnesses who was a run of the victims who was killed tommy williams was in the same gang faction is this defendant was he was murdered in the same area where the defendant says his gang you know rules and works out of it was clear while they were driving in the car they were discussing shooting a gangster disciple offer retaliation or there was discussing shooting a gangster disciple they were in that territory they couldn't find anyone they went to another location where another gangster disciples choose to killing sergio dukes was found on the street they couldn't really  and i would i would argue satan my priest but that didn't necessarily matter they were looking for g d s to shoot they don't find anyone they don't find anyone in particular location they go to the driving down the street in gangster disciple testimony they see territory so there wasn't anything  what the prosecutor argued in opening what he referred to when he referred to them as being his friends in order to find a reversal especially where they or she spent profit to find that there was any kind of reversible error there you'd have to find deliberate misconduct on the part of the prosecutor in the opening statement and that just did not did not occur in this case go back to the comment about being a marked person sure i think after the first time there was a reference by the prosecutor it drew an objection the court i don't know of the court ruled on it but  the state to confine the argument to the evidence and then the state two times afterward says he's going in to serve seven years as a snake repeats the word as a snake who else is in the penitentiary ladies and gentleman and he says you can't go back to his way  life after this it and in the meantime the court says again counsel you know keep your arguments of the case and this evidence then then the third time he goes back and says that whole life is over you can't go back to where he lived for the rest of his to be labeled to those you think that is the very definition of consummate his disregard of what the court is trying to to to tell him and if there's no curative instruction how do we know that this didn't impact the jury's deliberation more i think what you have to look at you have to make the determination if you find if you find again i would argue that that was based on the evidence and if you find he took it one step too far you have to make the determination that that that one extra sentence or that one extra  one extra statement of the prosecutor make made constituted a material factor in this defendant's conviction such that the defender was substantially prejudiced in the jury was so influenced by what he said  at the evidence in this case which the people asserted was corroborated by independent physical evidence of of the shell casings and the phone records which established that these comments by the prosecutor evidence it's virtually impossible the question why i have a different suggestion as to what it is the defense has a different suggestion as to what it might be you all probably have a different suggestion to what it might mean and that you know the self suggests that you tend not to determine based on a jury's question there is an indication from the record that that the aggravated battery with a firearm instruction had the accountability that accountability language the first degree murder instruction did not so maybe they were confused as to why that was i don't know but that doesn't necessarily speak to the close to balance nature of the evidence in this case it's the people's position that the prosecutor's comments were invited they were proper contents on the we checked it out and you will get it you can see that the prosecutor goes on for a very long paragraph and during about we checked it out back in january twenty ten we checked it out and we talked to the gang specialist and the f b i we checked it out there's two defense objections at that point saying that on the first paragraph where the prosecutor says we checked it out to place there's no discussion whatsoever about phone records or the evidence presented at trial that's only separate that's only about january twent comments have to be explicit they don't say the prosecutor has to say i believe witness is honest or i think a witness is honest to be improper it just has to be explicit in this case we checked it out i so it's goes beyond just i believe he's telling the truth it's that it's saying that we've already vetted him we know this time the truth we've checked it out it's a done assessment already from their perspective also in polk when the quote is explaining that has to be explicit they say for example this is my personal view that's not limiting it to those that phrase being the only way you can have improper vouching it saying for example there aren't any cases how this case is one pleasure i wish cases that i found were prosecutor go so five say we checked it out before we even put this witness on the stand we checked right finally about the jury questions there might not be a way to determine the jury spots for sure the jury the jury deliberations are obviously not black box but we do know that the jury was struggling with the question of whether williams actually fired the gun or not based on their question of whether they could find him guilty of aggravated battery if he didn't fire the dime we know they were struggling with this question and they were really really considering it they weren't just sold on str