petition that he was deprived of his right of effective assistance of counsel this happened there number of ways the this case all starts with the eye witness identifying a light skinned black male with braids as a person was an assailant upon her from that mr lacy was eventually sentenced to twenty five years in the illinois department of corrections his trial counsel fired a motion to suppress his identification the motion to suppress his identification the victim with the stand and testified that immediately you are the bench where she was assaulted there was a light that illuminated the area and allowed her to see the faces of her assa light directly she testified at the trial there wasn't a will there wasn't waiting directly overhead which makes her testimony at the motion to suppress false because clearly there was no waiting over the bench ok well your she misleading it was false it could easily have been a mistake o'keefe whether it was wasn't she cross examined trial about the previous testimony she was not she was attempted to be cross examined the trial about the previous testimony but the impeachment was never completed in that questioning was actually stricken from the record and whether whether she was i don't believe she intentionally lied about with a lie i didn't know it was lying i just meant that if she was mistaken she was mistaken the testimony is not true there was no both directly over the bench and it's the lawyer for the bench that led to the identification of that because none of their cross examination when trial counsel head you have to needed to do so when when she her identification oath mr lacy is at stake he never asks any of those questions he doesn't go into any of the factors that the courts would look to to suppress here you would be here if there was no motion to suppress i believe i would not be here that is correct i will admit that and i did admit that for the record in but there were as a motion to suppress and again i think that's where it all starts and then after that when we get to trial i think the major major mistake a trial for a trial counsel is letting in the evidence of the canine tracking clearly in illinois that is just not said when it implied actually i think directly to the contrary because if you are remember what we're doing is we're sitting at a jury trial so what happens is first the jury hears from the canine officer who talks about what the canine does and how the canine tracks then the jury heard from a second officer who actually testified based on where the canine stopped that was the location that was two blocks from mr lisa's home then we heard from a third officer who testified that when he arrested mr lacy it was in front of his mother's home so we've got the cumulative effect of three officers we've got the kenai festa money which is clearly inadmissible and clearly highly prejudicial the last time that all the four states permit some form of this him that is absolutely correct and she did point that out but the supreme court said emphatically illinois does not recognize that we are not going to recognize it and the reason is they find it unreliable and they find it highly prejudicial well so that would be discrepancy with a truck or wooden suppress the identification because of the discrepancy a trail because we wouldn't the trial court wouldn't be a trial yet with the trial court would have done i believe had counsel been affective is suppressed the evidence of the lineup in the first rate testified that she was using the right that was directly over the bench to identify the assailants counsel would have been able to impeach her on that statement by showing not only was there not a way over the bench or close to the bench the closest lake was one hundred twenty feet a case like that and i did not find a case like that but i believe he used the strickland standard in whether counsel was objective least reasonable as he is a trial counsel i think it's clear that any trial counsel in a case where the want to impeach the main witness where the wedding present a case where it's critical the critical issues the identification of your client if it wasn't he very very bad that she had  emphatic but remember her identification of mr lacy didn't take place till ten days after the date of the crime and that's one of the factors the court looks to also not only her ability to only description of the victim was light skinned black male with braids there was no height weight build nothing else that's all it was and i think grown from that to the identification  testimony that you know he's got away from the actual sexual assault that her memory of everything started to become clear i think she did testify that her memory was clear a week after the incident and it was her right after including the night of the incident she wasn't able to give any descriptions and the next day she did describe one of the co defendants antonio hale at home with which you agree that i put the trial correct and that was that was the time when all that testimony especially when it's not before the jury there's a lot of there's a lot of prejudice second come to certain cross examination in front of a jury at a trial  to testimony about the ability to be able to read a book i think something like that on that read a book that you lay out yes so i mean that there was a lady over the bench to make her identification of mr lee's you filed a very thorough brief if you want to someone else that we can hear from the state yes i think i think the other main issue i want to bring up i actually believe that letting in the canine testimony was sort prejudicial that that in of itself would require reversal i did not argue that in my brief i admit that as i was preparing for it and rereading crews and what the supreme court said and how they turned things with those three witnesses and then the state mentioning it in its opening in the state also arguing the canine testimony in its closing and using that to bolster the identification of mr lacy i