we you know when you say it's late in the week what evidence is there with me and i well know where it comes from well first of all there's two parts to that are first of all yet the major evidence came from the that has contributed does not establish accountability certainly beyond reasonable doubt so these two problems the evidence is quite quite weak i think the state's position is the evidence principle that a murder ends with the killing with the death and that things that happen afterwards cannot in and of itself establish criminal liability confused on this issue because there is a fine line between arguing he must have known about it he drove away and he's guilty because he drove away and he put up with the first year it was that was confuse where's their evidence confusing to the jury and that was an objection overruled by the way that's extremely confusing the jury because that's not where you stand you say you think he's more of the guilty or driving away this is the reason go away he never said compulsion is a defense to murder and the jury not being instructed as to probably the regard light would be confused if they follow the judge's instructions if they listen to the prosecutors arguments and if they on let's go or i'm waiting for you or something like that while the shooting was still current while the shooter was running away and she firing back at the car how you have to say the least that while the shooter is running away firing back at the car what do you make of the evidence that the defendant was exhorting the shooter come out i'm not to wait for you forever is this some type of courage meant during a crime is that some type of back up what is what is set up here are is extraordinarily ambiguous and that's why there's a reasonable doubt as to his guilt because we don't know if the victim was dead we don't know what point in the shooting that occurred we don't know what his intention was and say for mine yet  know i think you maybe you want to comment on what's happened in the closing arguments said absolutely well the forcing arguments included things such as saying fighting not guilty would be a mockery that the jurors of the first jury would sick to their stomach if they knew what what had happened that this would be a trend let's not make this a trend of lying that you might as well legalize drive by shootings i mean this was a free for all and many of the comments were objected to and objections wrote rule and i think the last thing i want to say that i didn't respond in my reply brief to this is that the prosecutor said well judge hill looked at all this that the defense that the defendant was serving the sort of compulsion i was following orders the defense did not work for the nazis or he wasn't saying to defend it was a nazi there's no comparison to defend its acts in the acts of the it can be in certain instances your honour's of the i mean i've never seen it and since when it was well clearly the one mention the word nazis was not the straw that broke this camel's back there we need it and is it ever think when you realize that that comment came after a some ation of discussion of all the evidence in the case which was not there but my question is is it ever ok to do with it yes you can do that yes in the context this state's attorney did that it's ok when he says when he outlines the evidence and says that this is murder in this case this is a drive by this is accountability  take the stand that the first it is permissible in the context of what the prosecutor was saying we have to remember here that the defendant opened the door to comments about what happened at the first trial you were call sims on the sand is a lawyer asked him why did you testify that your trial if you plead not guilty did you go to trial when you're found not guilty and frankly it's very obvious what clayton sims was doing here he had no jeopardy attached he had no repercussions it ever attests to him he went to a lawyer found out you know i can say based basically anything i want i can go in there and they can't do anything to me is that correct but my question is is all these counties with was  permissible to tell the jury that there was no bystander that the state will walk when the state called the bystander at the first round is it isn't that a lie now because what he's saying that no bystander the could give us any light as to what plate that what the defendant was thinking if we recall that bystander said i don't know who was driving the car i would ran and hid in the back and when i came back not only the shooter but the car was gone so there was no bystander who could tell this jury case into context your honor i mean taking all these things together if you feel that this defendant received a fair trial absolutely absolutely in america or with absolutely in cook county here in cook out yes or that still have air i believe so yeah all right and this defendant did in fact receive a fair trial this defendant was in fact guilty of murder there was certainly more evidence than defense counsel would have you believe today this defendant knew there was a gun in the backseat he said to rufus johnson that he knew that clayton had a gun or unit on him he knew that he was strapped with a gun when he's later describing what happened to rufus johnson he uses the word we we we bust the movie you know we clearly indicating that he knew what was going on we have evidence from from nolan swain that says that the shooter yell that's the guy who shot me chased him so there's this chase that comes by he he cuts off the victim's car he waits while the defendant of the codefendant gets out of the car start shooting the codefendant when it when he took the stand would have you believe this is one pull the trigger at one place all the bullets came out but it's clear from the physical evidence that there were this shooting continue to took place as it continued down the block as they're continuing down the block the defendant yells to the during the course of this shooting  yells to the codefendant come on get in the car clearly this is this is not phillips in phillips there's no evidence according the court that the defendant knew that the code offended hedda got there is evidence in this case th saying that the defendant intended to drive him away from the scene that this was you know he knew that maybe the police were coming you know he has seen him shoot he didn't disavow the acting didn't drive away didn't say oh my god no this guy was going to get  court talks about the things that you can consider when discussing legal responsibility his presence during the commission of the offense he admits that his failure to prevent the incident from occurring doesn't prevent it from her and he he provides the the car there in the car  way flight from the scene failure to report the incident the police and any attempt to conceal weapons we have all of that people versus three in this case and that's why this whole discussion of the jury instruction that wasn't given  actually decide point first was around point out this is not the same trial as the first trial this jury did not send out a note saying we're confused the standard accountability jury instruction was given here that's proper there's nothing improper about th instruction and in fact if you look at the proposed instructions the defendant wanted he wanted a romance dennis but that's really about the felony murder escape rule that's really not about accountability and to do it the discussion in romance dentist talks about the difference between those two scenarios and explains basically that what the instruction that they wanted wanted was really the felony murder a staple and romance tennis makes that clear the other thing  remember that it is the statement that they the instruction that they wanted was part of the law but not all i didn't include those things that that i've discussed here and people versus read and those are circumstantial pieces of evidence that were present in this case that show that the defendant was accountable for this crime and if you wanted to give another instruction had the jury asked woodhead if the whole body couldn't just get little pieces of the law and that with actually been more confused but the bottom line is in this case of course the jury did not send out in the woods and did not did not express any confusion whatsoever for the defendant even even in the statement of nolan swaim he talks about driving recklessly they do a pulling you turn on the street they chase the guy down several streets they cut him off so clearly this is this is an attempt to chase someone and the defend because under the common design under the terry rule he doesn't have to intend that the murder took place but of course he knew there was a gun and so the facts in this case are not philips they're more like the taylor case that was cited never even in that case the defendant wasn't even the driver he was a passenger in the back seat so the evidence actually is very strong in this case and it is more than just the recanted statements of the one fifteen ten prior inconsistent statements of minutes of their lives it's also the defendant's own statements where he placed himself when he turned the car it was because sim said i while our it that guy that could mean anything mike i want to guard marijuana i want to talk to him who knows so again evidence ad best west coast dallas i like this response to some of the things that  some of the things my opponent said about the closing argument first of all it is not true that most of these comments were not objected to the reverse is true the only comment i can buy where we have to raise a plain error is the is the comment about drive by shootings where there is no objection but the sick to the stomach argument there was an objection sustained but the point is the duping which is extremely prejudiced remark but second back you should convict not just the facts like here but to redress what happened with playing sims in this first trial that was very there everything else