least three minutes or so for rebuttal in addition to the sledge have you ever found any cases in illinois that the jury k the right of witnesses to be happened to the united states supreme court's decision people versus alfred which i remember from my law school law and evidence class and people vs alford you're allowed to cross examine a prisoner by asking him overwhelming majority of jurisdictions have addressed this issue and said that yes it is if you process violation for defendant you know his right to present the defense by his due process rights not to have a witness to compel all  with it here nobody asked him about this imprisonment or where he lived and he would have gotten away with it but for his cover there had never occurred to you i mean that the prosecutor may not have felt necessary to ask him defendant and this witness at conflicting versions of what happened did they not somewhat conflicting the primarily consistent in that well didn't the witness say that the defendant had the gun in his hand and he was presenting it to this victim whereas the defendant said the gun was in his pocket the whole time he had on a peacoat or something and they had the gun in his pocket all the time so there was a major conflict between the gun about the gun wasn't there and it does it make the evidence in your a still case i guess the supreme court i'm not even sure of this but i would think that the supreme court reversed based on the fact that he was not allowed to wear civilian  set that if the jury was already informed that he was a prisoner which the jury was not yeah but if the jury was informed that he was a prisoner the fact that he then was forced to wear the uniform one be  witness in the context of this on fire including his residence and if that were the case the differential between the jury knowing that he isn't that he does that he is a air you know where you have witnesses who you know basically are providing testimony that isn't corroborated or people contradicted by any external evidence we call that closely balanced and that's sort of what we have here where we have you agree that in the first instance that the evidence of the dependent lists must be competent yes now do you do you agree that in order to inquire into reputation evidence th a formula the trick by there is a form of our part in which you also agree that in this case now i'm setting aside the other issue of figaro up and then the cases that you point out that indicate that if a defendant has the right to self defense that if that person injure someone accidentally in the exercise of that writing that is to say that they would be requirement for an offer of proof but you're relying on lin and language there but lynch involved the introduction of three certified convictions if not that understand much by her repeated object i mean nothing from tiger repeated objections of sustaining objections to general questions to general directions from the state so the state objected generally without stating a basis be in force for example no offer is required if there was no practical opportunity to make one because of the trial court's hostility but in any rate it's kind of a tenuous basis that's simply because there was no formal offer of proof when everyone would know what the answer is going to be this for an offer if the question was asked and attempting to error to make that offer for that's why the offer proof is required first so the court can be told judge you know what i think you're wrong this is why this is what the witness w and let me make this offer proof so that the judge can either buy it and correct him or herself and then if not later we can review it and say this is what the person was trying to do the objection should not been sustained the defendant should have been allowed to proceed so that so that that's the reason for  but if you know i mean nine out of right ten judges night out of ten lawyers are going to see that that question is formed is completely objectionable that it's completely objectionable from its core right and th explain at that point i'm just stating this because the foundation is it robert but for purposes of appeal yes the state needs to say if foundation is their problem then they need to state that to the trial it and the other point is that that was the hamilton we're talking about cross examination here and so the defense counsels given anybody in cross examination is hearing why a bad attitude to explore issues in cross examination and courts upheld in other cases i a fundamentally misinterprets ledge the only supreme court decision that we have to look to first the essence of lish is not who was injured but the defendant's right to present evidence of self defense and so to a situation where the actual victim was an innocent bystander but the only the intended victim was the putative aggressor camp heat i think u exaggerate the relevance of one to the other can be exaggerated on the surface the logic seems very compelling that the same reasons that applied to one should apply the other particularly propensity something that is never permitted under conventional evidence flaw i cannot use someone's reputation to establish a propensity you can only use response would be that the evidence rules don't have to stretch all the transferred intent top replies to convict the defendant and acquit the defendant and in either circumstance the defendant has a right to present the evidence of self threats and s the extent that they just might you know aberration from the common law or what lynch has been the rule for almost thirty years and so the defendant should be entitled to present evidence under lives that would bear on the issue of self defense again it transferred in if you're acting in self defense but i think the issue now is crystal clear and well and was given a self defense instruction the jury excuse me was given self defense instructions and had it found that he was defending himself he would have been completely acquitted i think there is still a considerable basis to assume that the logic of the one doesn't apply to the other that if you're going to consider there should be no distinction other than the one that i just formulated which is to say we're only opening a very narrow door here and we're closing it but you know it's hard for us to victim that doesn't make sense here because the victim is an eleven year old but it would make sense if you could be acquitted of self defense it makes no sense to prohibit him from presenting competent evidence precluded from presenting self that's the motion itself and the state goes through each of these complaints appear and points out how there wasn't an error because they were first of all there's no foundation there's no offer proof and the statements alone don't really tell the reader or the appellate court what what the actual you know evidence was being presented here in your reply you say that that this was argued at the motion for a new trial so the state has forfeited any right to claim forfeiture because they let the lawyers argue but then at that time to argue that the one of the six they considered i don't believe so i think it is sort of like structural error in that it's you know infringing on the right to present a de facto saying it is amazing that there are opinions now  under the plane or attack or not whether to close it down but whether there was such a fundamental error that heard that it doesn't matter whether the what the evidence was because that flawed the trial so that the defendant did not receive them here that was the traditional language he used now there are some supreme court opinions that talk about what we're doing best that we're really talking that the defendant was basically a social work that he was trying to protect the children in the community from having weapons guns in their hands and he was firearms that are not ok so didn't the jury kind of sift through it all up and basically they they found that you know what he wasn't trying to kill her he was trying to kill the other guy so by the charge was against her because there was no charge against the the guy with the gun ok he wasn't charged with that because he was not proceeding in the state wasn't she but you see what i'm saying the jury rejected defense they rejected it because they may be making that he did commit aggravated battery that's not a reckless say it's knowing but they rejected the idea that he was out there to kill car he wasn't because attempt murder is and that is that this guy is going to return a gun to someone that he said is trying to recruit young people to be involved in case so he's going to go back and  about that this other guy had a gun they heard about it from the defendant and they heard about it from his the witness except that the way it happened was completely different so the jury has two witnesses giving completely conflicting versions so that that sort of you know cost them to begin with in terms of the weight to be given to their testimony but either way the jury heard the other guy had a gun they heard it from two different people and so they had they had what they needed now the problem we have here is that we really don't know at this record what this person's reputation in speak was no one has told us that in any single offer proof so you say he was prevented from doing it but we don't have anyone making an offer proof with the correct allegation and competent evidence that this other gentleman had a reputation in the community and that's all we're getting at we don't have any something and boman should have been allowed to explain that further and he was prevented what is the rules of evidence and whether or not somebody puts it reputation evidence in a competent we are are we throwing them out  point here as i said before is that this is you know head of rulings yes so you know we shouldn't look at them individually but look at them as a whole to show that judge stewart really did not think that this was relevant to shift for that all right but don't you think that we do have to have someone say judge if this witness were to testify he or she would say that i forget jet jesse gen y has a reputation in the community mor violence and it's face time individuals who have for million rise to themselves with his reputation by speaking to others and hearing from others not about specific acts or anything like that but they have this in the community being familiar with really be familiar with the community and that in the community they want to live there i mean this is the general notion is basically that someone had an opinion that he has a reputation for violence in the community but don't we have to have somebody tell us that instead of these things like you know he's known to stick up man or he said he was going to f me up and then the other guy said that means hurt me i mean what happened to the rules defense for it's not testimony that so incredibly impossible and while it does the degree of the plausibility of the defense and to reenter the equation of determining the closeness of the it can in this it could be a factor and to your question but where there's nothing you know no physical evidence no other evidence besides testimony here i'm two witnesses testifying to self defense both of whom had you know  you know improper restrictions on their testimony that plays into the level of possibility and so if they had able to present here williams testimony without the jail attire if they'd been able to present  are other reasons also on which which god the courts in the timing whether he should be allowed to testify as a civilian namely the glaring perception of a jury get witnesses be given the same rights as it is simply put it is pretty precisely because a witness and a defendant are not situated similarly for example you are allowed to ask a witness and stand about  and there is neither federally nor in illinois any such right for the defendant to turn around a right that he has where he can simply is not allowed to be compelled to wear jail guard but now he can compel other people to do other things besides simply testify i'm his behalf it to test that reasoning it's up a tree if you are my my expression here because that presumes that transferred intent would exonerate the friend from the murder of an innocent victim where he's being attacked by someone who against whom he's trying to protect them a it's a dramatic and unfortunate ramification but in terms of the justice of it the fact if someone is coming at you with a gun and you fire the gun to protect your own life and the bullet it's a third party you're not going to be convicted of the murder of a third party if you're engaged in legitimate self defense my point about extending his argument for him to dictate how their prisoner witness is drag as you indicated as was discussed before some of the cases even that the defendant has cited deal with state witnesses where the defendant feels are they quit that he would like a state witness to you can inquire into somebody's spending charge but you can parade him up there and let everybody know that obviously he's got pending charges he go over the jail so well but he but i understand your argument and i also understand that you have this backdrop that is harmless here so i think and you say because the evidence is overwhelming now let's let's talk about the the other issue because we do have another case and the other issue is what justice ford was starting to allude to that you figure oh yes and that's based on bridges yes but there is this long line of illinois already so it says that if you are exercising your right to self defense  killing shooting in this case ok ok first let me say a couple of things about figaro figaro the big issue in this case is whether or not the trial judge abused her discretion and clearly figaro is the state of a lot accidentally tell someone ok that person was a bystander and all those cases that was the whole point of it the transfer intent works both ways now they go wrong it doesn't see that oh it was bottom time that he things the first number of cases in illinois that tell us that when you're you know the transfer tent works both ways that the defendant cited three cases in his reply brief and neither none of those three cases say person that the defendant was trying to get in reputation evidence against what actually is a nice thing you were there for a moment regardless of what those cases say why shouldn't you be able to put him the same distance against his intended victim as he would against the person turning out to be exactly them in our words if you're shooting at somebody because he's trying to shoot  you you could put in the lynch the facts ok if you're shooting at someone because he's trying to shoot at you and you hit a third party which would exist for a cue from the murder it was a name victim and people versus w d the person they were trying to get in reputation evidence that really i'm sorry people versus w d they were not trying to get in any reputation evidence or any previous incidents they were trying to just get  air if the defense is something that the state thinks is ridiculous or implausible or is the issue here whether or not bennett should be allowed to present that  record and i and that's why i asked those questions of the of the defense attorney that there's never even a he doesn't even bring up the case now my question to you is whether or not it should be allowed based on you know what someone's opinion is of it or whether the defendant should be allowed to present the defense that he's entitled to do he has a right to percent just since he has that right and he has to follow the rules of evidence in order to present it i not my question i directed the question about the rules of evidence to him my question to you is should he be allowed to fully present this defense of self as because that his right and does it depend on how good it is or does it depend on the fact that he's entitled to present the facts here the defense was self that's why we're looking at the quality of the evidence are we looking at whether or not he has the right to put him completely and fully and explain to the jury everything that he thinks he has i'm not saying whether her rulings were i'm not talking about whether he until the end of the trial just before closing arguments is the first time the defendant offered a cat mentioned lynch and offered a capital case to the to the judge simply because the if they brought it up during all of the rulings every single last ruling that we don't even have to go to and you don't even have to go to figure out the defendant never asked the question and i wanted to address what you said about barbara walters testimony that is the testimony that he got close he did ask some of the foundation questions but he never asked the final couple which were do you know neighbors and associates of jad have you ever spoken to them have you discussed his reputation what right is his reputation because reputation well there were so that is a fallacy she let in lots of lynch questions and answers she the first question do you know this individual jack yes i know him the very next question do you know him for carrying guns in the neighborhood ok we jump the gun here so that was  allowed how often would you say you saw him almost every day we're getting closer she then he needed to ask her do you know his neighbors and associates do you speak to them because it's them her personal opinion of judge reputation  obvious what he was trying to do it that point when you say bring out information about his reputation for violence in the community and he got almost there and stopped the nobody stopped him he could have asked the final like you didn't answer my question about this trying to decide the quality of the evidence or is the that the inquiry whether the defendant should be allowed to pursue the defense now and the defendant was allowed to pursue his defense i want to be very clear he defense of self defense when it comes to an innocent bystander well and the bottom line here is the issue is did she abuse her discretion and we don't have to answer that that answer in this case period well you know you don't even get to  with that or just that opinion prevents a defendant from present lynch material soley because he wants to inquire into that person's reputation i mean i understand that do you say well we don't need to reach that that's true we don't need to reach it but in general this issue is here and then it says the court here is not allowing this presentation of  well basically says hey you don't get to do this you don't get to put in less material if it's a bystander but that decision doesn't really account for the notion that transferred intent applies both ways and that if you are exercising your absolute right to self defense if you have that right and you accidentally or you know you accidentally kill someone else you're exonerate defendant is is bulking all of these rulings together as lynch adds but this court it's to consider that while it was happening during the course of the trial there was no indication that other than the  evidence that it was there was absolutely no evidence that this was a concerted effort and this trial court's part to keep out the evidence she was trying to follow will that there was no mention of the word lynch ok the rules but we're not precluded from our own decision which would take out the erroneous case and if we should  that the law postured under the the earlier case is incorrect at that point do we have a right to reverse the trial judge if it's reversible error or otherwise simply because the judge was doing the only thing that judge was authorized i know from personal experience that it happened to me when i was a trial judge and i said i'm bound to follow the law of this particular of the fourth district but i think the law is wrong and you have a right to correct that when you take it off and i avoid the abus resolution i don't believe you can reverse in this case because there's no evidence on the record that she made a concerted effort to keep this lynch evidence out in the issues following that law when she did so she was making individual rulings and and questions that were either either not responsive or there was no foundation and there's no evidence i cited the case of figure read basically for this court to say and even if you think that all of those rulings were individually incorrect based on their own circumstances this code should know that this is trial right before closing argument she just she said i want to make a motion in limine way that defendant never laid the foundation for chad's reputation evidence to come into evidence and i just want to make sure that the defendant is not going to argue something that did not come into say brought up the word like that's the first time it was brought up this the trial where he had no no was never ever alerted to what what the defendants defense rose and each one of these