issues in the brief i'd like to confine to those arguments issues one that emissions two and if time commenting on the second part of issue three of them a collie issue but of course i'd be happy to answer any questions about any of the issues contained in the great  one is accountable he saw demands that the state prove that there was another body another human another person there other in many cases they don't know the name of the person in that person's never charged as in the cook's case the state cites there's just an arm there is evidence suggesting  victims were make him accountable to someone who rang the brother sort of zack and said it's kind of contrary if he was the principals and he was the principal and he committed the crimes it doesn't matter if maybe somebody rang the doorbell from which again they have no evidence or no proof of their fingerprints or another attorney said you know what i believe in circles attorney i think he had some holes in the state's case i'm going to find him back but again the accountability instruction and i know you have to prove that the defendant and that person is accountable to the person know if you kill your wife you did maybe you shouldn't kill your wife and he goes out murders her anyway one month after he pays for their and schlep insurance policy and you can change the beneficiary the painful life insurance policy is making the owner and his mother  defense object of this instruction and i say there's no evidence that he hired someone the state's not that proven that anybody else was in that house there's nothing and again i don't have to charge my instruction there is no evidence up until the last minute that the state itself said we need an accountability instruction and they argued that and allowed to determine either the suit off or that no second person they were allowed to evaluate the evidence in light of i think he probably did it by then we also he probably did it if he didn't hire chad russian he probably hired someone else relieving them of the burden to prove who that second person  and prove that he intended to assist or aid this other person it's not just simply the name of the person or the probability the accountability statute required another person and they did not do that in this case and the danger is the one who maybe didn't think it was head who  basically on prove that mr  doing exactly what you suggest other than have any connection to the crime as charge that he was looking up his that way and how would that be not harmless where he actually also on a website saying how to hire a hit me well there's multiple websites and i don't think it's an all or nothing proposition that all have to this type of evidence is the first time and it was noncommittal rap sites appeal it provides a good roadmap for starting with the basics but relevant evidence that makes a material fact more or less true back to controversy more or less true and through that they found family i mean people look at the nats who are i mean that any number of things to track the kind of faster they follow links i get links all the time that i don't even know where they're coming from in order to make sure that this evidence is relevant and tied to the crime either should emulate the crime as good roadmap when you're talking about things that when we can be confident that he really looked at all red i mean he typed in some words which may be taken out twenty seconds and then closed it you know some of these things that show a one day interest which when you look at them in the context viewed some of these web sites the higher the hit man the gunshot web sites and also looked at the sopranos web site he also went to look at counterterrorism he also looked at martial arts and work crimes where without the context it should not have been admitted because again i don't think there relevant i think there's definitely more that arguable to be relevant than because of the facts of the case and because of the circumstances in the nature of the crime the gun shows to hire the hitman maybe you know could show was intense as solicitation of murder case began we don't have any evidence he hired a hit man in the murder case but two separate trials here but you know some of the things like going to a spy steroid or a private detective is that has no relevance to what happened in the actual just this general kind of a family in my entire life i've had this kind of motive an attempt has to be tied to the crime was the state's trying to do here is used again for anybody using every move looked at on the internet for your whole life and ch cell phone on him and he recorded the time at six fifty he rushed up to the desk sergeant said i'm here presented a card and then came back now the state's evidence to the contrary him again that's evidence that he was through the door at six fifteen was commander steward who wasn't there who wasn't at the front desk again but that sergeant was never called the people who were in the mission i spoke to were never called we have the commander saying i had a rule in place that i was to be notified when an attorney was there but he also admitted he didn't even hear the first page that he had to have a car commander come no store and say oh there's an attorney here and then macaulay instructs us it's not that they were being a fiery it's not that they were trying to hide anything but at six fifty or it was there he wrote it down the judge found him credible the only reason of the judge found is that i don't believe that you can make time he walked in the door where he said was i got a knock on the door about seven twenty saying that there was a page appears that he didn't hear and that he as he was hanging up the phone he was downstairs talking to the victim's family and then he walked up there's no evidence about what happened between six up to seven twenty a offered about a couple of lines as he said which is where he was which i would say is directly related to lacey where you are when your wife is killed is directly related to the crime itself in seems so much doing right doing the exact station on x i'm waiting for counsel i think the police knew that and he knew that and everyone was kind of waiting for riordan to walk through the door and hold on one hundred folks his right to counsel and then he answers questions with i was right about certain things that you know again leading down the slope turned into creating a solid alibi for him again i don't think it was a very you know good idea that he said i will talk only about certain things but i was also waiting for her and his lawyer was there and no right to deny him access to counsel but that the questions asked were more than just general questions because the police were asking him basically what happened the stay where were your kids the stay what about your car things that ended up connecting him to this fast alibi statement and then i believe it was for them to continue in that vein i believe it was again rather than just because he was waiting for counsel and he invoked his right to counsel and he intended to have you know a counsel present with him when he spoke about which is a miserable there's no evidence off of that it couldn't have taken him this long you know number one number two he said oh i believe that this policy was probably that was followed that everyone would have followed it but the commander still hasn't the proper person to say whether or not his policy was actually followed t the first page the commander missed the first page didn't even hear it so maybe there was a page before that that he didn't hear that again the defense was required to show by clear convincing evidence that china was there and present at six fifty and he was there in the state did not were not that credible as  found evidence well thank you morning honors with respect to the accountability issue i apologize just like a ball assistant state's attorney on behalf of the people with respect to be accountability instruction first and foremost the defense is basing its entire argument on the fact that on the state's theory and the state doesn't the accountability instructions are not tied to the state's theory the instructions are tied to the evidence not trial strategy is wrong is there a slight evidence in the record to support it instruction can be given but there is more than slight up in this case your honor we have first and foremost i think most importantly is the fact that there had to be there was no forced entry into the home the facts here showed that the defendant had help gaining entry into her house she never would have opened the door to him she had an order of protection against him she kept her address a secret from the defendant she feared him she thought he was going to kill her and she knew that he had hired right tempted to hire somebody to do it she always kept her doors like that she never would have opened the door to him that she was she boarded up her windows she's not going to leave her front door unlocked if she's boarding up her windows on top of that he said to chad person i made a plan with my father and the mother nobody in that family was going to open the door to him he had made enough of it because the evidence shows that this is a longstanding history of domestic violence between the defendant the victim and members of the victim's family he made threats to other people in the family he told everybody there he told her sister i'm going to demolish your face and the people in the house the family knew that he had attempted to hire mother in law is staying with with the child with her daughter bringing the children over so that she would be says well isn't there some good solution we're coming over that morning not at that point no they wouldn't be there she actually no no she called and said when she was going to leave and when she would be there so no this was not a time that there were children coming over the house that morning yes but they were not there they were not there was one child that was coming over in the sister that the mother in laws i'm sorry the mother's daughter called and let them know what time to expect them it was not this time  mother of the play date from the evidence the the sister was not to right until closer to lunch time because she was calling to get their lunch order so when the defendant arrived at approximately ten fifteen or ten twenty two or ten thirty no it was too soon for the sister to get there but i top of that evidence we also have the defendant saying he made a plan with his father to commit the crimes to shoot her with a gun to make dry runs in the i don't know why was the father wor the father did say he was at work however we also have phone calls coming in later from the father we have all this evidence preceding the murder where the father was the only person he could trust because he was a bag man for the mob and we have an abundance of evidence that the defendant sought help in committing these crimes we can't just disregard that he was looking for help to commit these crimes and the g s r the gunshot residue evidence alone supports the theory of accountability the expert said that he could have been standing in close proximity to the shooter we only need slight advents to to get this accountability instruction we don't have to prove accountability do we have slight evidence absolutely it's there there's a stronger gentleman in france in this case b secret from him banned he she feared he was going to kill her she knew about the solicitation and she boarded up the windows of her home to kill about old enough to no forced entry of her there for ten minutes now so and if you were there no eyewitnesses saw him go in so who knows who opened the door looking for help to commit these crimes he never said he was going to do this alone he always said he was going to need help or want help and the g s r evidence on the rest he could have been standing next to the shooter all of these both victims and then the defendant staff to mary there is absolutely some evidence of accountability making it that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving this instruction and we do not have to prove the identity of the actual killer in that case we have strong circumstantial evidence than another person was involved and that's what the case law requires none of the defendants cases here hold that the state must identify the actual killer in garrett the problem there was that the evidence proved that the defendant shared a common design with the others to commit an armed robbery not to commit a murder here the evidence shows that the defendant shared the intent and common design to kill mary in this plan was executed accordingly perhaps if she was robbed and that murdered it would be a different story but that's not what's here again the state doesn't have to argue the theory of accountability as long as there are slight evidence of it it goes and it doesn't matter that the defendant was charged only as the principal there's no charge murder by accountability and the courts allow this type of pleading practice on the state is not asking to expand the law of accountability just to apply the current state of hawaii as it exists to all of  told larson that he was going to kill her with a gun with his father i think that's direct evidence not just circumstantial there s to councils concerned regarding those jury instructions again there's no separate murder by accountability jury instructions there's no separate charge for that and the cases that she cites were not decided on jury unanimity grounds they were decided on illinois could count real shared versus arizona the united states supreme court case from one thousand nine hundred one says that a jury does not have to agree how the crime was committed actus reus unanimity is not required and that case doesn't quotes in returning general verdicts in first degree murder cases jurors are not required to agree upon a single means of commission of an offense d jurors may be persuaded by different pieces of evidence even when they agree upon the bottom line so those cases tell you are wrong but the illinois supreme court cases that tell you if there is sufficient evidence to prove him guilty as a principal there's no prejudice it's a harmless thing and counsel is attacking this verdict and nothing but speculation back can't be done here there's no basis in the record to even suggest it as to this issue the trial court properly instructed the jury on accountability as for the internet evidence the defendant waived this issue on appeal the defense is attempting to parse out these individual objections to individual pieces of internet evidence which is totally improper especially  the evidence was admitted here at trial without the objection that's now urged on appeal and she's not even suggesting ineffective assistance in this regard there's no reason to review it under plain error but his guilt the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming there's no structural defect and there's no logical way for her to establish precious there's no doubt there was a direct nexus between this evidence the solicitation and the murders the court did not abuse its discretion to allow that evidence  country two consuls argument halo actually supports the state's case in payload there was a lot of internet evidence that was introduced one hundred seventy five pictures of the images and numerous internet search terms and search results that court found that the search terms and the results were properly admitted because they were relevant to show a state of mind and that the names of the websites were properly introduced without showing the content because clicking to the links on those websites were relevant to prove a state of mind that case did not hold that a defendant needs to emulate the behavior shown on the websites that's not what the case found there's no such heightened burden for internet evidence to have to be admissible and the defendant concedes that in the reply brief what he says is that in order for internet evidence to be admissible it must be connected to the defendant and the crime in other words as we've said all wrong it has to be relevant and here there's no doubt that it is he admits that those searches are his they corroborate the state's witnesses and they're completely related to the crimes charged the state was absolutely entitled to use this evidence to prove that the defendant was responsible for the murders yet evidence was not even remote there's a long standing history of domestic violence between them  is going to be prejudicial against the defendant but the real question is whether that prejudicial effect is substantially outweighed by the probative value and that's what we focus on and it is the probative value here was very high it establishes a backdrop of the defendant's desire to rights but he's not making a statement saying that he wants those rights and he probably waived miranda here anyway he said that he wanted to talk to the police not through the assistance of counsel just to set the parameters of the conversation saying i'll talk about anything else but i'm not talking about the defendant that his attorney was at the station they stop questioning him they brought the attorney to the defendant and allowed them to me privately privately or within minutes after arriving at the station the evidence did not a stablish that attorney was there at six fifty p this was a question of fact the trial court made that factual finding that the attorney arrived at seven twenty five pm the trial court determined that the police version was more credible and that factual finding is supported by the evidence here especially where the attorney was not wearing a watch she could not remember the names of the two desk sergeants and couldn't even remember if they were male or female the trial court found the commanders how a c was scrupulously honored because if you step back and look at the defendant's argument doesn't make sense the detectives would never have taken a break from really i think it's a reasonable inference that can be made at the evidence here shows that the contrary to what the defendant says he was not there at six fifty pm he didn't get there until seven twenty five and within ten minutes within ten minutes he was sitting there sitting talking privately with this client there's no indication anywhere that there was a colleague violation also the trial court didn't rely in its own opinion to determine that there was sufficient evidence in the record to show that this attorney could not get from downtown in the loop to glenview by six fifty pm where the evidence was not that he flew out of his office ran to his car and sped all the way to glen view the evidence was that he had to leave his office that he had to take the elevator down one thousand floors that he walked not way into his not when you have in the evidence that the officers left the defendant's home at fifty six hundred north richmond at six o'clock and it took them forty minutes to get there to the station and you have the attorneys starting at two twenty one north or south a much was a reasonable inference to take from that that it would take him longer more than a reasonable inference the evidence is there that it would take him longer to go a further distance to get to the station now importantly that factual finding is supported by the evidence in the case and is entitle to and just to clarify the first page went to him at seven twenty five because the commander approached him at seven twenty seven not ten minutes later and at seven thirty the commander ended the phone call that he was on with the victim's family went to the room heard the evidence from these witnesses made those credibility determinations that the attorney did not a right before that because his policy the commuters policy was scrupulously honor and scrupulously followed this is what they did whenever an attorney came to the station they didn't have police station not the capacity of private counsel excuse me but there is evidence in the record certainly to support the trial court's finding and they're finding is entitled to deference under if you know the point being there is no mccaul violation that the police did not do anything to keep the attorney waiting and keep them away from the defendant they met up together were privately talking within ten minutes after his arrival if there are no other questions the people at rest on their free and respectfully you know that he made that comment to chad larson and there's no evidence of dad was there all the evidence suggests he was calling dad in the state used that to kind of like help me help me help me there's no proof that he had anybody ring the bell i don't think he needed help bringing the bow and that even if one person rang the bell about and ran away if he walked in the room and he killed the woman he's the principal he's not accountable to himself he's the principal in committing the crime and the state fled to prove that that that what they need to do which was the intended to be accountable to someone to need to solicit to i and i and some of the common have closing arguments that maybe you know my that was a smoker maybe she opened a door and went outside have a cigarette because she wasn't smoking in the home if that's right evidence that there was another person there that's not of the evidence of any one i could have been maybe he put a puppy in front of the door and rang the doorbell and she's our cute puppy there has to be evidence of a person if a neighbor would have seen somebody walking down the street or saw somebody in the doorbell a fingerprint on the door about or something that's not evidence of that it's a bad pure speculation in order to say you're accountable for a doorbell sounded the second one about buying the gun that they didn't think that he was and again that is an argument he was only charged with actually trying to solicit dr chad last summer that had ended on october in the mid october and again the state's theory after he gets in chemicals and the evidence eliminator which has again just telling them the website not exposing them to actually rise was highly prejudicial and basically made him what the entire theory was as he's a bad man he wanted this to happen and it happened