the state's evidence in this case and what the statute requires for proof specifically along the lines of knowing possession in this case the evidence was that matthew wilson was a drug dealer about three hundred thirty nine client mr jackson was also there he admitted he had been driving a vehicle also in the car was mr wilson's girlfriend taylor who also testified that nellie was mr wilson her boyfriend and a good dealer said never before gone with them to bloomington where now with mr wilson don't we travel there sell drugs and police respond the men are outside the car and they eventually all the men to get their coats and some other items from the officer testified that there were two dozen of the video showing there was only one mr jackson was outside the car who is the one person outside the car the record doesn't show that it's not it that i guess it's not clear it could it could have been my client it could have been mr wilson even if we assume it's the best fact for the state that it was my client rather than mr wilson there is no evidence as to why his car or what he's doing there's a number of items in the trunk that apparently are on top of this on top of the the through just the circumstances of the stall vehicle what the police found at the time says this is not this is suspicious but it's not enough the court finds it what put the state over the top in its mind was the testimony of ms taylor and yet the only thing that she said that remotely incriminates him in any imaginable fashion is that there's always some hours earlier as it would take at least that amount of time to get from chicago to someplace in  sees mr wilson and mr jackson in mr wilson's house or apartment welling about eight very small bags of crack cocaine and from this we are to infer that the stat the court case that i mentioned in my brief talks about you know what you know when you've got more than one person in a car in which they find drugs and it talks about you know the driver's life bill and proof of the guilt and it says in cases where they put it where the driver's been convicted there needs to be some sort of showing of special or specific knowledge by the driver of the contents and there isn't anything here there's nothing in the record even about who brought out these bags of crack in this trailer saw the two men have or whether it was ingested at the time there was no testimony that mr jackson ever discussed or was ever seen loading the trunk or there was a discussion about any deal there's no evidence of a discussion about any deal to drive exchange for drugs and on top of that mr wilson would have disclosed that by the way you know you're driving me so i can sell drugs in bloomington and i've got a stash hidden back here what about the use of the drugs car on the way down i mean the is that free jackson knows that there is this stash of cocaine hidden in meth wilson's truck but trying to second issue the chain of custody issue you know the defense's position is that the state failed to make a private fisher case that took reasonable protective measures to prevent tampering or substitution or alteration the main thing is that we have an unexplained unlabeled rock of cocaine or heroin cocaine looks like it supposedly there materializing was supposed to didn't use this container then we have now if you agree mr ryan that this record was very difficult to figure out exactly what he's talking about because he's using it this container and there are multiple containers we envelope they were in the clear plastic bags that were sent off later for fingerprint analysis but he says and i have this in my reply brief counsel says now as far as people's exhibit number one it came to back to me that means all i don't know what about six he doesn't talk about that when they ask him what's up where did this come from he says he doesn't know when mrs durlacher the forensic the lab person is asked but the basic proposition of which is when there's a substantial discrepancy that there is an explanation is warranted and in this case we have somewhat of a way discrepancy about seventeen point three grams that may or may not be explainable by whether it's whether the some of the past some of these little plastic bags have added up to the missing seventeen point three grams but the main thing is we have this rock of a pair of crack cocaine that's completely unplayable that shows up so now we have six items  of five and state and the objection is made and there's still a gap in the in the in the chain of custody terms of the testimony presented where but terms of who had control of it and what was done but it  the after mr hartley put it in a locker until it was moved to a lab and then after from the lab you know two to the court the exhibits  rate the state could have called whomever was in charge of the evidence both of you know but before it was sent to the lab and after it came back from the lab according to the list there appears to be at the vaults and gave it to mr tripp are hard for sure just for trial and it seems to me that when you have this unexplained you know bit of contrary view you know it calls into question whether or not this thing has been properly safeguard or has not been tampered at least calls for more evidence it warrants an explanation and so and so basically for as on those grounds request a new trial i was going to stay if there were no questions i was going to stand on the third question of what constitutes a reasonable inference on the record in this case so there are some several key facts that explain what happened prior to the arrival of the police on  for having associated with the drug dealer who's famous wilson in furtherance of wilson's activities and traveling to traveling south out of chicago to sell using others to drive him one person was named mccoy had been on the rail well this time so the defendant being wilson a drug dealers driver it can be reasonably inferred that when he was holding prior person standing at the time and when the trooper pulls up and the door of the automobile opens and the second person comes out there are the true because i don't think you can pry any inference from the fact that apparently only one person is st direction seen them stall on the side of the road and i noticed two men out side the trunk is it possible i'm not sure because i've seen the video essentially if the video just shows the car pushing from behind us and sees one person at the truck at that point in time it doesn't exclude the possibility that the trooper could have seen two people outside the trunk and fire point in time for example if they had driven on made turn in the come back right here his cameras when  he's pulling over to see the trooper from the time he starts every gets the dispatch and he pulls in behind the currents a very short trip and there's one person standing there the other person gets out of the car after the something that they were using to transport the drugs in the beginning of the trip or was it only placed in a ruffles bag case that's something that they had handy the moment the car breaks down and if there is a need then at that point to put the cocaine somewhere where probably would likely be detected for example his trunk lining and there was some evidence where they talk about getting out of the car going to mcdonald's if that was their plan they might not want to carry all th so i mean to put the drugs in the trunk at that point so it's entirely clear but at least recently francis can be made about what happened apart from what was actually testified to fact that that's not the chain of custody in the us the state to reopen ask more questions with respect to one part of the chain of custody and leave the state's case cited the fact that each particular objection to the chain of custody has to be graceful though not just well because they mention about straight bag now also they haven't forfeited all additional grounds for objecting to the chain of custody that is called stafford etc all the other issues that are now raising for the first time feel the it is your honor and then the state does so by showing that substitution was improbable because the reasonable protective measures were taken such as the labels that were placed on the middle on pillow because the seals that were steps my question to you what does the record shop i don't remember what the record shows on that point but that doesn't mean the record doesn't have any per patient with respect to that question i just don't remember at this point we so it does it however few cases for opinion so while there may be that one identified deficiency others which are forfeited by the defense cheney has he doesn't have to be perfect and the fact that there was one for the prosecution to account for that so this is a different situation where the the weights were tested one partially i mean on that basis the lab and the way that seizure it higher so it's a defense is here a nothing in the rush to support that what the evidence shows is that he used to go with it all the time with a guy named mccoy there's no mention of anyone else or any history and the record is plain that this is mr jackson's first trip so says the state's  so i don't know how without any evidence to that effect that you can putin any knowledge of prior trips to mr jacks five you know i don't see it seems fairly likely that the police are going to arrive at some point unless you can immediately take care of the problem yourself and the idea that they needed to hurry up and hide this is is not part of the record but i think perhaps more to the point why not ask miss taylor who's in the current estates would instead of relying on reasonable inferences from quote from questions that were not asked by the state the state could have asked them did one or both of these guys apparently one of them or which one of them get out of the car to hide the drugs after the car stalled do you think that free jackson knew about the drugs and if so why the state can't say that that was basically a suspicion reasonable suspicion is a reasonable inference of guilt the idea that being in chicago in a room with eight small bags of crack cocaine and there's nothing about who brought them what was done with them somehow cutes knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt that by one that the other has three hundred some bags little bags hidden in his  unexplained rock unlabeled rock of cocaine that materialized in the sun there was the state's opportunity there to to call and present additional evidence fix it and they did so the state argues now that failure to complain about a wait discrepancy or or  who generated though i will of would have given them a chance to fix it apparently you know the main thing the main problem again is this unexplained rock and that was objected to i also think that look at the way discrepancy which maybe can be explained and maybe not at the very least doesn't help the state because you know in a normal case you can point to a matching id number matching weights and matching number of items and you don't need to call everybody who is in that chain because everything is reasonably well matched up in this case we don't have a match gentleman who trained gave the the item back to trooper hartmann just before trial