this is not a room the machine that makes your wife's louder is just recording u  and you will reserve some time for republicans yes i would like to do that your honor it was proceed to your honor today i would like to focus my argument on issue one in our briefs of course i would be happy to entertain any questions from the court on the other issues if you so desire this court should be first michael temple's conviction because he was prejudiced when the state improperly used at least twelve prior consistent statements to unfairly bolster the testimony of the thai witnesses despite the sheer volume of evidence presented here by the state that didn't sway here was closely balanced the state indeed tried to make mountains out of molehills they presented extensive forensic evidence three witnesses about gunshot residue yet showed no link between the car and the shooting three witnesses testified about the recovery  had the but the friends say again the forensic evidence is not corroborate that they presented three witnesses about recovery of a gone there was no link between that were covered gun and michael temple that was ever shown there were flashing messages witnesses right about that yet there was no link to the outer hanchen of temple he was arrested at three in the morning in his own house many miles away two of the eye witnesses called to testify at trial made no identification of michael temple whatsoever and with respect to the other try witnesses their testimony was inconsistent in many key aspects they get instant inconsistent accounts of how far away the car was at the time of the shooting the speed of the car the number of the gunshots whether the shooter had facial hair the color of the car and they or their testimony about the position of the shooter they testified he was inside the car shooting was inconsistent with some of the other testimony that is because that actually requires three factors the statement must be one of identification it must be of a person and it must be made after perceiving the person that doesn't yet track the language bill and made reference to the problem of suggestive courtroom identifications and also spoke about lineups and that the reason why this was an exception to hearsay was that lineups were especially val that's consistent with much of their legislative history and the jurisprudence under the federal rule which have really focused on the fact that that out subsequent identification confrontation is the decisions which have gone the other way which have been criticized by all the commentators we have cited are not doing really telling us why we should take shall we should take to sell and we should take hasan we should say that there were wrongfully decided that this the reasoning behind allowing identification testimony if a lawyer were in court and asking the witnesses out in the fact wouldn't that lawyer be able to ask the witness mustache and he was standing next to a blue bowl xlvi out would that be a proper question and response and a trial your honor absolutely and the difference between that and the evidence in this case is the idea of the pr of the state cannot ask the witness in didn't you try this same story twenty different times before that is the product but that's a different question but you just yes now is a general rule against saying didn't you tell someone solve this same version of events twenty times that's not the same thing as asking someone did you identify him in a life and when the witness says yes i did  one and that there is a as you say of lang time being considered to correct that problem of unduly suggestive in court room identification they are a similar event that happened before trial at a closer time the law has always permitted those the problem in this case is the state allowed to put in twelve times that the witnesses told the same story outside the court to other people with our that key factor of having that made after perceived in the person that is what makes a photo id and a line up a show up different than a player consistent statement brill's line up show ups are based on a recognition of seeing the image and saying yes that's the want the problem with the player consistent statements they are just mere repetitions of your memory of an impact and again you can put one on on the witness stand it's the problem is when you barrister by putting on all of these prior times that the witness kept repeating the same story and the story doesn't have the reliability of seeing the image and saying yes that's the image i recognize or not all the supreme court has long ago felt that process or statements of identification include the entire identification process one fifteen and the federal rule of evidence could be read to even expanding at it and they basically say the statements are not rendered invisible by hearsay we have a declared testifying at a hearing or trial we have to declare who is subject to cross concerning the statement and the case law has already told us that the statement of identification of a person made after receiving him is traditionally allowable has an exception so we're where are we missing something in your question here the question here is really whether that identification of a person made after perceiving the person whether that includes just  statements of description that were made with our that subsequent confrontation opportunity of seeing the person again if that if you believe there will but is that what the rule is designed to  year because it's allowing cross examination they have to be subject to cross in court and that's what we have here we have with this is who are subject to cross each and every one of the testified was there and was present and was examined for your honor if that were the case the world could end after the word identification of a person period instead it goes around and has an additional class and just a limitation it says that has to be made after perceiving the person ok how that would be meaningless what stephanie that means the identification confrontation you see the image and you say that's either it or it isn't are at all that the area is a line up would be the classic example  you have that says after perceiving him means what you're saying we've cited many cases from other jurisdictions i also would listen to what is from this the supreme court which obviously we have to listen to the supreme court said that we find that the hayes chord heard in limiting statements of identification to witnesses actual identification of the defendant this interpretation mistakenly focuses on the result rather than the process is that pretty much answer the question what the process here is the opportunity  the new rules of love and say that they are codification as they are not new and to exist to say that the the statute in the rule were designed to completely throw out the prohibition on prayer consistent statement israel knew greet was shot three times hey suze pitino one of the victims immediately recognized defended the shooter a person who had gone to school he knew defendant by his name and his nickname michael one fifteen twelve just like the testimony in people versus emerson in emerson a police officer testified that the witness identified the defendant and his brother at the scene of the crime and also describe the building that they lived in the officer statements however when the statement is one of identification prior statements are admissible as substantive evidence when tested by to by an eyewitness or police officer was present when the identification was made the victim in emerson just like he suits in the instant case identify the defendant by name at the scene the crime certainly after perceiving him also the victim in emerson described the building where the defendant his brother in both cases the witness identified the defendant by me and described as just with pride was saying you know the car that he was writing and when he committed the crime  shown a picture of michael temple the defendant within hours of crime and positively identified him we also have a one hundred going and identifying him in the wind but my point is that in  wasn't a formal confrontation in the police station it was the officer writing at the scene and the witness telling him after perceiving the defendant by name who the defendant was and we have this very similar situation in this cas newbill was wrongly decided because there wasn't as counsel has suggested a subsequent point time prior to trial where there was a observation of the of the person being opposing the defendant cited in that case a police officer acting undercover was selling cocaine to a person named clam and then claim was arrested and the undercover officer asked her who are supplier was and she stated brail e the prosecutor asked the undercover officer and the witness stand how when reacted oh then then when she was recipe showed her the photograph and she said yes that's real he ought undercover officer testified at trial out of work i don't think asian so i would submit that this has been a longstanding precedent and that we now have emerson and lewis was a two thousand and six illinois supreme court case where these out of court mcbride asked whether it could be too much and just discordant us whether this was plain air and the answer to both is yes this was twelve prior consistent statements most of them had nothing to do with identification person five of them or about a car it nothing to do with the person i don't know how that can possibly fall within eight zero one it was too much it tipped the balance in this case undermined confidence the attorney here failed to recognize the progress made no objection you really have a weak case and but for this bolstering which has no connection to that special reliability of confrontation experience that is the reason why michael temple was convicted but for that there is a reasonable probability that the answer in this case could have come out the other way and that is why we asked this court to reverse and romantic