you council may please the court counsel i'm jason jordan from the public defender's office and i represent chris young in this matter this is a case where the evidence was closely balanced because credibility was the only basis upon which the jury had to decide young's guilty or innocence here there was an altercation a true value hardware store mr young testified at trial that mr skinner was the initial aggressor she'd been disappointed to work because of mr young did she get in trouble for letting him take scrap metal an earlier time that's not what it was that's correct and on the prosecutor's errors to go directly to credibility the first there was when the prosecutor was listening to testimony from the deputy the prosecutor said quote now have you dealt with other victims of physical confrontations in the years you've been a deputy the deputy answered yes i have the prosecutor asked and was is the meter consistent with the victim's presentation immediately after confrontation this eliciting this testimony painted the deputy as an expert of credibility in addition it was basically a comment from one witness on the veracity of the truthfulness of another witness which is improper a second testimony that occurred within the us he says was his demeanor whether the deputy interviewed mr young in his house and there was never a question of how he got and the only purpose of that it would have been to prejudice the testimony of mr young himself and since mr young to testify his credibility was an issue the second error would be that goes really to the heart of credibility is when the prosecutor told the jury that the defense counsel why the prosecutor said in closing rebuttal referring to defense counsel but he's  that i wanted to address is also from a closer rebuttal where the prosecutor asked a journey to send a message the prosecutor in closing rebuttal said quote now ultimately you're going to send a message with a verdict what kind of community do we live in do we live with a strong bully the weak with a loud an angry take advantage of the meek those are the rules of the jungle do we have a community where one has a right to run an errand go to the hardware store pick up the stuff he needs to pick up not be accosted assaulted or battered by somebody your verdicts are going to send a message it's going to reinforce the basic rules of a civilized society that we're learning kindergarten this is improper for a couple reasons first and ask the jury to deter general crime general crime in the community which is improper it's ok for the prosecutor to ask the jury to deter the future potential crimes of mr young but it wasn't proper for them to the prosecutor to ask him to send a message to the entire community to prove to protect society otherwise it would have been it could have spiraled out of control into chaos into the rule of the jungle also it created us versus them mentality when the prosecutor said it's going to enforce the basic rules of society that we learned in kindergarten and ultimately took the jury away from their rational role as finders of guilt or innocence that was their duty here the duty was not to send a message to the community their duty was to figure out who was the initial aggressor in this altercation with mr young or mr skinner and the last heir i want to talk about today is  himself in order to justify pushing shoving hitting mr skinner this is a misstatement of the law because the state has the burden to prove to disprove self defense and here it also shifted the burden on t the defendant in addition in a closely bounce case like this we can infer from the jury question at deliberations that they thought this was possibly a closely balance case when they asked for m occurred on the first prong to the second prong we would say that these errors combined generally there is a pattern of misconduct and that it goes to the heart of the digital system most notably the burden that's correct you're the one that i pointed to that was most closely there was when he said quote but he's scratching think about that he's making it out much like he's finally made up their burden of proving he had a realistic concern about a freshness property your honour's what was going on in this case the defendant raise the affirmative defense of self defense so as the burden that was taken on by the state which the state admitted this burden multiple times throughout the pendency of this case during jury selection during opening arguments during closing statements and again on or about all the state maintains the burden of proof in this case the state had to prove that the defendant create and gave an aggravated battery of the victim mr skinner in addition to just proving that the that mr skinner the defendant here acted in self defense your honor when the state said i don't think they met their prove that their burden of proving he had a realistic concern about a threat to this property i don't know the defendant must establish that he acted reasonably in order to warrant a self defense jury instruction in this case some counsel so you're saying that it's ok for the prosecution to tobe a jury that the defendant has not met a specific burden in a criminal case your honor what i'm saying is that the defendant has to establish some evidence is that given that date the right to tell the jury that the there's a definitive test to prove something you are in this case they said and i want to consider these closing arguments and told all during the defense closing arguments defense counsel stated quote what we have to prove to you is that there was an action that mr young took in response to something that he believed was a threat to him or his property owners that's true of the defendant here needed to establish that he did act in self defense the state does maintain the burden that they have to death through that defendant act in self defense but there must be some evidence to suggest that self defense was warranted in the first place but counsel would you agree that even if defense counsel is confused about the burden improperly shifts the burden and still does not give the state the right to improperly shift the burden and instruct the jury or tell the jury they're not instructing them told the jury that they have a burden that they have met their burden that the defense has your honor i understand your concerns and i agree that this probably wasn't word of the best way that it could have been worded it was improper counsel  understand your honor concerns here however the jury was properly instructed in this case multiple times the state they said multiple times the burden lays with the state of prove aggravated battery to prove that that offended did not act in self defense the state's attorney in this case said that's strange very selection during opening statements during closing and during rebuttal in addition to this the jury instructions that were provided to the first by the trial court and we must presume that the jury followed those instructions when they received them and so basically is your position that while it was a fair we'll consider the entire context of the fact that the instructions were given properly the entire posy argument then it doesn't rise to the level that w don't think it is believe a bomb i don't think it is credible those are both improper it's a prosecutor assistant prosecutor a young prosecutor an old prosecutor who or it is doesn't  say you can't say that to the jury that's not what's going on strong but in the weak loud and angry rules of the jungle that is all him proper prosecutors say i don't think the defendant is telling the truth i don't think what he says is believable i don't think it's cr it's appropriate for the prosecutor to comment on the evidence in this case an honor as you know it really played a role i'm specifically asking you here if you will this prosecutor supervisor would you tell him her him or her to agree with you other things should not have been said in this case i do want to discuss briefly as you brought it up to send a message quote and with all due respect to my opposing counsel you did not read a quote and it's entirety and i would like to read the quote and now the safe side in closing argument now ultimately you are going to send a message with a verdict what kind of community do we let them do we live where the strong bully the weak where the loud and the angry take advantage of the me those are the rules of the jungle do we have a community where one has their rights and run errands go to the hardware store pick up the stuff he needs to pick up not be accosted assaulted or battered by somebody your verdict going to send a message it's going to reinforce the basic rules of the civilised society that we're learning  garden and sure we've all had it said many many times by your parents and teachers keep your hands to yourself don't touch other people they're simple rules to follow and we're all supposed to do it guess who did it your honor if i want to compare that statement made by the this whole country safe for all the male of acres that have a right to be asleep in their home without having a guy like that come in and shove a gun in her face when you find the defendant guilty of armed robbery and home invasion you're not just protecting haleigh baker you're protecting every child in every citizen in every home in this country your honour's it's permissible for the prosecutor and ask the jury to send a message to this defend it that's what the prosecutor did here he discusses the golden rule and he says we're all supposed to do it we're all supposed to follow the golden rule guess who did it he asked guess who didn't which means he was talking about the defendant guess who didn't follow the scroll the defendant didn't follow this rule your honor people versus mine are also stands for the proposition that honor but and his statement when you read further he's talking about this incident here he says go to the hardware store pick up the stuff he needs to pick up he's talking about this case he's talking about the defendant and when you read the statement and fall when he and say guess who did it he's he's not aiming that statement at the community as a whole this defendant live in the jungle your honor it's not my belief that he lives in the jungle i agree with you there forever your honor what we have with these cases where the court has found prosecutorial misconduct is the prosecutor has taken some sort of additional step which we don't have here for example and liner the prosecutor during his closing arguments wrote guilty on a whiteboard and your right arrow pointed at the defendant the prosecutor took that extracted show that he intentionally engaged in this misconduct your honour's additionally and people versus blue that illinois supreme court case which is so critical to prosecutorial misconduct cases there the prosecutor created a man and put a bloodied and brain spattered police officer's uniform on a mannequin for the jurors to in between this confrontation we also have the testimony of debbie rowe's the first responder police officer in addition to the testimony of some of the spinners the alleged victim in this case the defendant himself also take the stand and testify in this case so while the others that we have is all testimonial in nature what we have is the testimony of three witnesses his testimony on corroborated one another first the defendant's testimony which wasn't proper aided by anything in this record your honour's that's the adults in this case was not closely furthermore defendant did receive a fair trial in this case where the jury was properly instructed and your honor there were no objections made by defense counsel to any of these statements during this case your honor as i submit to you that if when the prosecutor was saying these things if it came across it so bad and so angry just surely defense counsel would have objected to these statements and you've done it and your honor we have very experienced counsel for both the state and for defendant in this case we have these states attorney  the public defender of edgar county are both counsel in this case your honor is defense counsel didn't object to any of these statements on the record counsel i mean we can rely on defense counsel in determining if something is that you know as a former prosecutor myself we want prosecutors to win these cases and make it stick and not have to come back on issues so basic  as the ones in this case i mean it doesn't it's not appropriate it doesn't take that you have a strong case why mess it up doing things like this right your honor your honor i think here i understand that we're not considering ineffective assistance of counsel in this case and i do agree with your honor that you know a lot of times defense counsel doesn't object when they should have objected to a hearing on or additionally the trial court in energex either and what was going on your honor's you have to consider these closing arguments in the arguments that are made as a whole and in context your honour's for example in reading blue and reading liner you just get a really bad feeling when you're reading this what's happening here is that right congressman you read the closing statements in full when you read the state's direct closing arguments when you read defense counsel slicing arguments and then again when you read the state's rebuttal arguments you don't get that terrible feeling that you've got in case the blue in line or with a particular statements are so egregious and in addition to the prosecutor taking some sort of additional action or reading guilty on the whiteboard and bringing in a brain spattered police officer mannequin on display in front of the jurors your honour's that's just not what we have in this case but we have your honour's as the prosecutor making misstatements of law which don't rise to the level of reversible error in this case your honor the jury was properly instructed there were no objections first we consider this in terms of plain error whether the evidence disclosed the balance here we have three witnesses for the state versus the defendants testimony the three witnesses for the state their testimony was all robbery to one another and the jurors clearly believed and rendering their verdict that they found the state's witnesses to be more credible than the testimony of the defendant you honor i realize we've covered a lot i just want to give you an opportunity if there's any other statements that your honour's are concerned about it's been pressed time at this time i know we've covered defendants questions about burden shifting and fabricating the theory of defense which prosecutor ask the jurors to send a message to the community but when brad and total that's not what the prosecutor asks the jurors to do here there are very briefly in terms of the deputy deputy rhodes testimony your honour's here again what we're comparing this testimony to where the deputy essentially said that the victim's presentation was consistent with the presentation of the victim after crime your honor said the cases that are cited by the defendants and the precedent set forth by both  here because here mr skinner he made no statement debbie rowe's was the first responder after multiple nine one one calls during the savanna he testified that he believes that the victim mr skinner was shaken and scared and he's been around other sir your honour's here the prosecutor never asked deputy rhodes whether you believe the defendant that mr skinner the victim was being truthful rather he was being honest debbie rowe's simply testified as to why his experiences and how that made him react to the situation at hand an officer may describe the events which led up to an arrest which was like he was doing in th because the jury was properly instructed and because the evidence that's not closely balanced in this case reversal is not warranted and this case some although the prosecutor made misstatements of bach overall the cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct does not under john send you have to consider whether the prosecutor intentionally committed misconduct however a mistake or a misstatement does not amount to a prosecutor mistimed this court may end up harmless air to determine whether the evidence was not closely balanced and that from blue your honor however prejudice here is not the focus on the squire does have to determine whether the defendant received a fair trial your honor for the reasons i've discussed today based on the testimony of palest skinner or kayla petit the cashier skinner the victim in seventy rows the evidence here is not closely balance the defendant had an opportunity to testify and that he received a fair trial so the abuse of discretion standard because in communities where you're under no go think after it's over exactly the issue here is credibility and these errors affected the credibility of the witnesses here and so you can't just say because the jury found the defendant guilty evidence was not  close in addition as far as the liner case is concerned it should be pointed out that in line the prosecutor there never actually said the word quotes in the message that court said that in effect the prosecutor asked to send a message here the prosecutor actually said the words asked them to send a message as far as the misstatements and the burden shifting yes there were the law was correctly stated and