the first the statement at the press q to misrepresented the terms of the peak remit that mr williams received in exchange for his testimony in this case they conveyed to the jury that he was only receiving three years off thirty year sentence when in fact the terms of the plea agreement were that he would get sixty percent downward departure from the thirty year minimum that he was facing and in federal court you know before we get into that very much you know the rules don't really allow for attaching something to the and fix and then the court proceeding to consider it that's the first thing we should probably address ok i mean i'd look you know i know we can take judicial notice will sure court proceedings but the supreme court rules illinois don't allow a health plan to submit something in the appendix and then asked court to use it for  the state's attorney and the defense counsel and it was a subject of litigation and of course from motion yes so i mean we're off there but the rules don't allow for the appellant to attach something that sat in the record t appendix and asked the court to use it to resolve an issue well then i think we would ask this court to take judicial notice of the freedom of the plea agreement there's a public record in this court  apparently the district judge sentenced mr williams to fifteen years do we know at all what happened at that hearing but we know we know that you pursue the fifteen years we don't have the transcript about here is this is record what it it talks about who operate it but it doesn't talk about a state case and talks about proper eating with the bed i can't see that word today for some reason anyway but it says that if he does they  can request of the district court to reduce it by sixty percent which would i think take us to less than fifteen when it looks like i'm sorry take this about eighteen or something like eighteen and then you knock off the massive heroin distribution case in the federal court now you know hindsight is twenty twenty but isn't it reasonable for the lawyer now to want the jury to know about the federal case and this massive hero and distribution ring that the defendant was intimately involved in yes and that's a subject motion of the many and the parties agreed we're not going to bring out the details of  are going to front that he is getting there williams is getting consideration in exchange for us testimony in this case and have been drug case isn't it reasonable for the lawyer representing your appellant defended not to want the jury to become fully aware of this whole mess over there in federal court doesn't that tarnish the defendant or on the jury i think that the fence c ensure that the jury sees the actual terms of the agreement and that this guy is going to be subject to eighteen years three years up thirty that is different that he doesn't need to bring out the terms of i'm not saying he needs to run i'm saying is the state going to go along with this idea of it the deal is just sort of in a vacuum there's no explanation to the state yet to  inquire once this deal is discussed if there is if there really was such a deal in advance i don't really know but why would the state not be allowed to inquire about his deal if it's coming out that he's got a deal i don't think had a chance to go into the deal which involves this massive heroin distribution ring involving everybody in this case well the same you know i do i mean that there is up it's own he to begin with he's got five felony convictions the jury is already aware of the act he's you know you could say he's very dirty right away that's another you know but the point is that the parties decided in advance that they really didn't want to have a trial involved in this trial but if it's coming in then i think the state wants to i mean i don't  notice the state response and says well we're going to take this law was take this notice of the whole thing solve a month before mr williams the sentence the federal prosecutor asked the trial judge to sentence him to thirty years your where there are two right ok so how is there a deal for thirty years or fifteen or whatever it is eighteen how was there a deal when the u s attorney's asking the judge set the spot he williamson to thirty years disagree and it's a written document and it's a request filed one month before it's actually sentenced and the u s attorney asked the sentencing judge to sentence him to three hundred  eighty months or three hundred sixty whatever was that's what they asked for so how do we from this determine there was some deal for fifteen or eighteen well my understanding of that agenda but they filed subject to three hundred sixty and he still got that percentage off of that deal well inside here here's it here it is it's page six and it tells what it was filed and it says conclusion for the reasons set forth in here in the government respectably request that this court applied the enhancement for criminal likelihood in calculating to and aki williams guideline range the guideline range calculated by the p s r was offense level thirty nine that was because of his five convictions and criminal history category six resulting in an advisory guideline range of three hundred sixty months to life in prison adding two additional offense level points will raise the offense level to forty one but will not change the advice because they're asking that he be sentence between those two cases in order there was a clear definite statement how many years to the finish and again in this case we have something in that was clearly perjury you know on the part of the defendant testified in that case think it's pretty clear i mean this is what the client expected went to as a trial this is what was set out to say anything different i mean the jury here this is where you are i mean he  deal is contingent and the judge should greene is that yes so how do we know that if we don't even have the sentencing hearing that apparently took place a year after this case how do we know what happened off and how do we know that the judge didn't decide to just give him the eighteen versus anything else because the u s attorney didn't ask for i mean you're reading his this memorandum completely differently than i am i read it as an it as a request to give him the full thirty years that's how i read memorandum but without the sentencing hearing how do we really know what happened because in the end it was the district judge who held the strings she if it was judge did not have to agree to any so are we just sort of speculating here without the transcript you know they could have sentenced him  we are talking that we are going to bring out this consideration that he received in exchange for his testimony you know that there is an agreement going on here i let me ask you this let's say the jury hears he has five convictions and he's getting eighteen years minus three for his testimony in the state case then this other thing that they're never going to hear about but i don't agree but let's just say the jury in this case hears that arkie williams is going to get eighteen years  fifteen and then he has his five criminal convictions are you suggesting the jury would have found your client guilty i think the jury where there was a recent probability i'm sorry yes reasonable probability that the result would have been different yes all right yes i'm going to step it up it's very different then then if you have three years off thirty if this guy has cooperated with the about right what what's the case is about that he's right i mean what is the point of saying he's getting a deal if you don't explain what the deal is about him i just don't see all coming in that they needed to bring out w this guy who's working with the feds and the state's attorney he's getting he's got facing a minimum of thirty years in exchange first testimony he's kicking he's getting sixty percent twenty about what any cooperation is i don't need is the jury going to hear this in a vacuum that's what you're suggesting they're going to hear it and they're just going to say ok but the judge is not build any anything in about what the nature of this agreement is the judge can do that shot and i would suggest that that is more appropriate than something that's blatantly false just three years after thirty which is completely wrong for the jury to hear this case cooperate with the federal government federal government is the speak has an obligation to i mean this is to use and due diligence to understand this is their witness they are writing this testimony they rely on this testimony in their closing argument this is the case if you look at knows and we have an obligation and it's to due process violation for them not to use due diligence to get that out the u s to the illinois supreme court has said something similar that due process requires good pay which requires an attention to detail and not you know even an intentional deception or misrepresentation cannot be excused when this is a key witness this is a state's witness in the control of the state it doesn't  this part of this that fashion what i was just inaccurate about that can be telling about the early you're right and part of his compassion without oh yeah i was part of that that's why i went on to commit this other shooting that was his motive williams said any deal but that's before he was given an official deal but even at that initial time when he started talking he had to be was being arrested for this for a crime he had a motive to kind of to curry favor and to you know have some currency with the state so it's not like you just after this for no you know was an innocent bystander clearly and you know again you know we made him the prosecutor acted improperly also defense counsel failed to protect the due process rights in this case he failed to show the jury the amount of motive that this witness may have had to curry favor and also missed an opportunity to significant notify the state of his alibi so not only is he allowing this other witness his credibility to be enhanced he performs in a way that allows the court or gives the court reason to completely completed preclude anything what exactly did he say about where it was he stated i was at my girlfriend's house all day and that on the day of the shooting well there's some cases where nearly there the kind of with this is that generally you're going to have a case like this because everybody involved just kind of filthy in terms of convictions prior whatever so i mean in some ways those are the kinds of witnesses you're going to see and that they sort of fall into place with the whole picture so here we have a lawyer who's trying to defend a case where there's a videotape he's got it his client this is giving it can fashion and yell the cases do suggest that confession is pretty compelling but then you have two other witnesses who you know are kind of actively involved in the whole you know so it's really kind of an yes or if you i mean did he got into a situation where he pursues guy on the stand and now he's on the stand and then of course strikes assessed money and the guy starts and all we kill when this witness when the defendant  percent eighty percent of the lawyers trying these cases are not going to throw in an alibi they're going to go with the script recently down because there's a that's one you can possibly sell but there are cases in the supreme court has recognized that sometimes lawyers get stuck with some real losers and they have to do the best they can and you look at the whole record and you see whether lawyers effectively represented this client or not and i mean i don't know how you can say that reasonable doubt i sylvanus witness is already on the stand the harm that comes from that where his alibi struck everything he tries to get out from this client that's possibly positives from this case the struck and he's a subject to cross examination at which time state can repay the videotape impeach him you know talk about his confession you know present this whole state again so he for some reason he had a reason that he wanted with this guy for an alibi his deficiency was when he f notify the state in fact understand that he had present notice and this harm then came to his client in addition to you know as we discussed in the first issue where you know that you mean time bolster its witness and really hammered its closing argument you know about how you know this guy didn't get a deal is three years i laugh if you was really conniving he would you know done something to get tenure so juxtaposed to have you know testified it would be pure speculation as to what he was actually going to get because he hadn't performed his obligations under the deal yes i mean that's part of the there's there are others i think that  testimony the promise the seven unity have been made for testifying in a federal case where another u s attorney another person the same office and in fact made such a promise to the witness that's a pretty clear case that's a lot different that's the trial judge is going to allow them to say that he's going to get half of this sentence but not explain how or why no i don't and i think that the defense actually prevailed on  motion of women and essentially to completely separate this case from the federal case so that there was a trial of another case in front of the jury pretty dirty built the operation that was getting everybody i guess two three four five thousand dollars a week over course of how many months your list more than a year you have the question my conspiracy case was a very big deal and that judge ruled as the defendant's wish to keep that the judge sat in making that ruling and repeated it before trial i want to know what consideration what the jury did not what consideration his getting for his testimony in this case meaning the murder case that i'm of where defendant was the defendant from the get go well he would have been even dirtier though if yes curity had heard about this other deal that he had going yes and so would have to factor let me ask you do you understand that everybody had this document before trial yes and i think the the case itself or that what happened was there was a notion unlimited file and improving on the notion of women and they didn't discuss the document per se they didn't discuss the teams that the terms of this provisional deal which is what i would call it because it and they didn't talk about exactly how they would deal with that what the judge said was that case is separate and she made a point of that twice right before trial when you bring up williams are you going to how are you feeling this the defense didn't say look rather ineffective shall we say a specific place like that because there was no opportunity whatsoever for the people to respond or did it just came out of his mouth at that moment to this isn't one of these situations where somebody made a motion and said we'd  paul williams was dirty by you know various things and the people's other witness was dirty by other things defended wasn't dirty the police by that he didn't come in as you know was a convict or is someone who had you know reached you offhand whether there were any did the state introduce you know we didn't i don't believe that we introduced anything at trial he was kept relatively he was kept very clean i mean in fact we had a we had a tag along case i think way back in the r trial proceedings he certainly cross examined other people's witnesses and at the end of the case the trot the end of the entire case after our promotion for reconsider sentencing list and i fell for you know when i was  that for them he identified them and he even explained how was he came by the gun how he knew the big gun how he knew that the victim that he just walked up to with impunity and you can see that there without any prompting and the jury saw this and this i think it's about the most powerful possible evidence you can have someone still so i don't think they can prove prejudice even if here is a completely contingent agreement how do you respond that this is contingent upon something that he has to do or i don't know what it is he s do we have to cooperate fully with all these and and do we know or how do we say at this point he's getting eighteen years when he hasn't even finished his contingencies but nice to have is where do you expect to kick you think you're receiving something in exchange for testimony here what is that oh would they need to say is this guy just agreeing to cooperate with rebel government the state government and change you know his cooperation he's getting eighteen you know sixty percent off of his sentence in exchange for his testimony and that was the understanding including in this case so we know that he's this guy is all the jury was that you know is that this guy is under the thumb of the federal government the state government he has a reason to curry favor and the fact that he's up on the stand testifying that he's only getting three years off  know how he's going to get this when he hasn't done whatever it is he's supposed to do which we don't know really what it is pretty good it doesn't even the destroyer say going you're getting to young change her testimony yes what are you expecting that you're going to get i have an agreement with the federal government sixty percent a sixty percent reduction in exchange for my cooperation in this case and maybe another federal case that this year you know what this guy's getting he's not getting a mere three years and to argue in p going only getting three years of course you could believe this guy if you were really naive or he would be getting ten or fifteen years what he was doing and had to shell ten or fifteen years finally one final thing i would say is that if this court does find that there's not enough information and certainly the trial judge had an obligation to you know he just took precedence for this was not knowing hey it sounds like there's something going on here the judge should have inquired into this a little bit further in that that the agreement itself if if the there's not enough information based on this record in the court and i do not encourage below we can't send it back for every man for their information because when you have a witness who i mean this is an important issue here where you have a witness testifying