and that social media photographs of kreider were irrelevant to prove the charge that it is well established in illinois that a defendant need only show reasonable grounds to believe that prejudice against the defendant actually exists and that prejudice there is a reasonable apprehension that the defendant cannot receive a fair and impartial trial it is true that the right to an impartial jury does not require that jurors feature totally ignorant of the case before trial however in some exceptional cases such as this case it is questionable whether the jurors could live up to their assurances that they can put aside preconceptions and decide the case based on the evidence at trial the record of this case demonstrates at a minimum that there was a reasonable apprehension of prejudice sufficient to merit a change of venue the quincy herald whig published an article about the case the saturday before jury selection the article was published above the fold on the front page with a color photograph of the prosecutor it included a section entitled how it happened and offered the state's version of events including allegations that kreiter disposed of the gun made attempts to find out of state housing stayed in a hotel spotter made a remark suggesting that they would have to get rid of a witness the court acknowledged seeing the article and thinking that it would be quote problematic defense counsel told the court that numerous comments have been made to him and that he believed the article had a severe impact on the prospective jurors unsurprisingly given the publicity and the nature of the case approximately seventy five percent of the questioned individuals during the veneer had heard or read something about the case of the twelve jurors and four alternates ten had heard or read about the case beforehand juror williams read the article and stated that he did not believe it was alone in new jersey summers was the victim's lunch lady at his school both williams and summers who questioned after the court had denied the change of venue so counsel knew he had to pick a jury from this pool and had to be judicious with his current jury challenges when s lifting i think it was forty four approximately forty even though the jurors assured the corps and counsel that they could be fair it's highly questionable whether they could live up to their assurances well meaning citizens and doubtlessly had good intentions but they should not have been placed in the position of passing judgment on this case which naturally affected the community in which it occurred so we're not to take the words of the word no sir it's not that you're not to saying for example just just as a as a taste of the the answers these jurors were given one potential juror release and made it to the court that she found it all very tragic and that she didn't think she was worthy to decide her case i wish i could i like to think i'm an open minded person but it's also sad it's also close it's in my county it's on the streets that i walk on now the trial court denied a challenge because for this reason the state ultimately used a pere challenge against mystery's but that's the sentiment that was going on in this community that was reflected in the newspaper article so it's not simply that you don't take that it's not that we're asking this court to say you can't take a jurors word but you have to take the jurors wrote word but also understand that they're words being made in the context it's which it's being made where this is a terribly sad case there's a lot of emotion and there's a lot of sentiments around you know who express those remote was removed alternately yes were there any jurors who deserved to indicated they could not be fair and impartial to both sides none explicitly drew williams was all to mentally seated and his comments were a little bit more he's the one who read the article and did not believe it would be baloney he all timidly said he hoped he could keep it out of his mind he would try to keep it out of this mind so ultimately all the seated jurors did say the right things overwhelming emotion in scent and sentiment and the community rendered the circumstances such that it simply was not possible for jurors chosen from the community to remain fair and impartial the fact that this was an oral motion should not impede the court from ruling in kreiter staver on the merits kreder acknowledges that generally motions should be in writing but as trial counsel argued at the time the newspaper article was published on saturday monday with a holiday and he simply did not have time to draft a motion  time for court on tuesday moreover the state never objected at the time to the motion on the grounds that it was oral and nor did the court make a note of the state responded on the merits the court ruled on the merits and i ask this court to do the same if there are no further questions about the change of venue i'll move on to the issue of social media photographs it is a basic tenet of trial procedure that evidence must be relevant before it is admitted in this case the social media photographs of  taken from someone else's account were not relevant to prove any element of the charge defense it's crucial to remember that the state convinced the trial court to admit the photographs under false pretenses in the months before trial defense counsel learned that the state intended to introduce social media photographs of kreider and move to bar the state from doing so the state convinced the court to allow the photographs by falsely arguing quote who put those on there obviously the defendant and the prosecutor continued quote he's provided that he has put those on his facebook instagram account snap chat whatever it may be that were placed there but it's there and remains there at the time of the shooting in finding in the states favor the court relied on the state's false assertion that kreider himself had posted the photos to his own social media accounts look if we assume that he didn't post the photos does that mean the photos can't come in i mean did he do not intend it was him he didn't deny that it with him but the question is if you don't even have to make that assumption we know that those were not on his account those found the account of a and instagram user who went by the handle ts up vontae and the record shows that these not only words at somebody else's account but these photographs were taken months before the shooting in arizona with an entirely different group of people there was no and i understand the half of my question news is that me is them ultimate bar to the evidence committee and just because he didn't post well i think it through gets to the question of relevance were those question where those photographs of relevant to prove anything in this case then maybe they wouldn't be allowed but they fact of first meet the bar of relevance and there is no there is simply no relevance to these photos again taken months before in another area with entirely different people that ties in any way to what's going on in this case that proves that crater was the perpetrator in this offense and not somebody else did your client not having a weapon deny having a weapon no he did not deny having a weapon on he didn't testify but the question wasn't necessarily whether he had access to guns the question is does this prove and none of none of those guns that were showed in those photographs none of that was alleged to be the gun that was used in the shooting there's the the photograph simply don't show any connection to the offense in this case this court the court also meant we found even when at when those defense attorney realized at trial that these were not from these were not with guns but again familiarity with guns is not an issue in this case there's no there was no question about whether the gun perhaps went off accidentally or whether this was a practice discharge or some circumstance that would warrant anything it's not even that the state was able to the the the pictures are clearly when you look at them they're clearly from this other person's account for everybody well they perhaps would have known if they looked a little closer bet again at the pretrial motion you have the state arguing repeatedly that these are from mr writer's account and not acknowledging that these are from somebody else's account which admittedly would would naturally cause confusion into where where these photos were found so work and their use and everything but again the question of the million if is familiarity with guns an issue the idea of guns at all really wasn't an issue in this case because there is no dispute over the manner of death that a gun so as it pertains to this defendant that would be the argument for the suit as it pertains to this defendant yes he says he had access to guns many months before the shooting in another state where again and it's not like he was using those guns in a criminal manner those pictures are all young men acting like rock style videos they're they're essentially they're they're playing they're making these photos and videos they're not in the course of a crime or anything like that they're almost using the guns as props they're not using them to for any purpose other than to to make themselves look in a certain way and again these are photos that there's no there's no way to know that kreider and yes he he may have purposely posed which is the ultimately why the corps allowed them but the fact that he purposely posed doesn't go far enough to establish their relevance and particularly where we don't know if he knew that this t s f dante person was planning to post them we don't know there's no indication that cry it or followed this account whether he liked these photos or commented on clothes well i don't know that it's fair to assume that they will get posted i mean they're certainly making these videos but i don't know if it's unclear to say that he knew at the time they were making these videos that this other guy was going to post them in that way so i don't think it's fair to me to lay that assumption on to him that simply by posing for photos and again for these photos they appear to be playing making videos they're they're making rap style videos and photos it's nothing about that would cause would would make a connection to a shooting several months later the only purpose of letting a jury see these photos is change of venue because this is a jury who is by the natural sentiment in the community in the wake of this case as are the mind to see him in a negative light and then here come these photographs that again are unflattering and negative and i think the average juror would see him in the negative light that the se intended to show him in which it's probably why initially the state used the hate this that was his it bad was the state's exact argument when putting it in was he's putting himself out there when he points photographs or points a gun at the world and puts those there and puts those there for all the world to see and enjoy at the time of the shooting he has not only provided the foundation for the admission unless he can show it has been doctored but he's but he's produced the relevance which is really the issue so i mean the state is arguing that he put himself out there he's posing for through these pictures because they want the jury to see him in this light and again this is this has gotten into under think either we or a jury or the trial judge was mostly completely disregard of common sense and take into consideration the fact that if the defendant is hosing for these photographs now i'm saying it's simply not relevant to prove that charge defense in this case is whether civility is excess his access to multiple files is not well it's not relevant because again the fact that a firearm was used photos on did the photos depict the type of weapon used in this shooting do you know i do not know that off the top of my head i think there were multiple types of weapons portrayed in the photos whether those were  type that was actually used i'm not certain it's possible if there are no further questions may have briefly concluded your honour's this was undoubtedly a tragic case and a small close knit community the citizens of adams county had a right to know about the events in their area but should not have been put in the position of judgement for an event so close to home and so emotional for so many a change of venue was warranted and the trial court abused its discretion by not granting one this error was compound by the state's underhanded attempt to introduce unflattering photos of knowing that they were taken months before in another state with ever people and posted to someone else's social media account these photos were allowed under false pretenses and served only to paint kreider in a negative light and front of a jury that was fine to see him in s that the defendant failed to comply with the statutory procedure fee for seeking a change of venue venue in that he failed to file a written motion supported by affidavit the defendant points out that he didn't have arguments of the defendant argues that there was a that a reasonable apprehension existed that he could not get a fair trial for two reasons first of all he points out that some of the jurors are had her or read about the case and then he also points out that some of the jurors were affected by an outburst that occurred during trial did the state's attorney dissipate in the newspaper interview i believe so i don't recall  now with respect to the jurors knowledge of the case from having read or otherwise heard about the k g b it's well established as this court has as discussed earlier today that the jurors do not have to be completely ignorant of the fact of the case and said they simply have to be able to disregard any preconceived impressions and judge the facts of the case fairly and impartially and cheer as the court explained it went through an unusually tedious and lengthy selection process where i think at least forty four jurors were consider and of the twelve ever seated in the in the alternates every one of them sure before that they could judge the fact fairly and impartially and case law is well established that jurors should be believed when they make such a very minute or search our jury system is essentially predicated on that notion  here the defendant points out that this was a tragic case but it's a murder case of every murder is by definition tragic so the idea that you know if councils argument this court vice counsels arguments it would seem then that every murder case would have to venue would have to be changed as every murder case is tragic and every murder case probably every murder cases reported in the local newspaper separately instruct the jury that news is not evidence now with respect to the outburst it wasn't discussed today but it was discussed in the briefing i don't really see how this in any way relates to the media coverage or prejudice in the community as noted in the briefing any friend or family member that was willing to disrupt the seedings would probably be willing to go wherever those proceedings held and and and it's reply brief the defense argues that people in a different community would somehow be less affected by such an outburst but offers no authority for for that proposition and here again nothing in the record indicates that that the limited media coverage that is expected again almost any murder is probably going to involve some degree of media coverage nothing in the record suggests that actually denied defendant the right to a fair trial or that the court abused its discretion and denying the motion to change venue with respect to defendant second argument regarding the social media photo the photos of the of the handguns don't believe the defendant has disputed that they're real and i do believe that at least one of the witnesses testified that that that the witness recognized one person is may recognize a photo  of a gun in a different photograph that may have been the murder weapon a forty caliber handgun so that the type of weapon actually used was one of the weapons used in the photos is what you're saying which and then of course the the victim here right right was murdered with a forty thirty or forty caliber handgun now and you know course there's no to the briefing you know exactly the murder weapon to one of these guns in the photograph prove difficult because defendant threw the murder weapon into the mississippi river unfortunately investigators were never able to recover it now  note that as i pointed out in briefing the defendant here is not arguing that these were unfairly prejudicial or that the prejudice of sexually outweighed the program value with what defendant is arguing is that they simply rapped lack no relevance at all  and evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to make the existence of a fact that as a consequence of that examination of feel more or less probable and here the photos again they  these photos are evidence that tend to show that the defendant had ready access to a familiarity with numerous handguns in the time just before the merc and that the state's position is that as a fact of consequence of the term a nation of whether or not instagram with weapons that proves that they have ready access costly shots and if if an individual is posted numerous photographs of them having access to numerous different handguns i believe that's relevant to the determination of whether or not that individual quote of murder someone with a handgun now the defendant points out here that these photographs were initially reduced under false pretenses are also searching to that point i would know first of all that i mean there's a difference between something being purposely false and simply a mistake and second of all as your honor pointed a lot has been made about what you know who own the social media accounts who posted the pictures who took the pictures but frankly i've not seen and i don't believe that the fences produced any sort of already showing how that somehow bears on the relevance of the picture i don't see how that in any way alters the analysis again the pictures the pictures demonstrate that in the time just before the murder of this individual had ready access to that seemingly at least five different semiautomatic  yes to be clear months i mean i think it's there's there's quite there's some dispute about how many weeks it was and i don't recall off the top of my head would have mattered i think that i think that the length of time as again your honor i believe that the relevance simply to establish that he he could have been he could have possessed the gun and it and any of it even even even if these photos are relevant even if even if although it was not argued even if there were more defendant in speaking with that detective did the defendant make any type of statement related to access to commands or denial of access to anything like that if i'm not mistaken your honor i believe that he admitted to the detective and i think it was during the first the initial interview i believe that he admitted that he did own or at least had previously owned a variety of different handguns i don't know denial have acce harmless first of all the defense argues that we have to prove the state that is has to prove that this is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as hoarders yes as previously explained that standard only applies if the error implicates a constitutional right here at worst this would be a violation of a rule of evidence so the governing standard there is that the defendant has to show a reasonable probability that he would have been acquitted absent the erroneous admission here the defendant does not argue reasonable doubt does not argue closely balanced evidence he does not dispute having a handgun does not dispute being one of the two individuals that gets out of the car and said he he simply the only argument here is that the jury had a reason to question his guilt because sean parker was the other of the two individuals that got out of the car now that it is worth it it must be pointed out that it was defendant who was who got in a fight that night with my believe it was katie who was extremely upset with katie sean parker on the other hand was not involved in the fight in effect was not even at the club during the fight after the murder sean parker goes to the hospital to be with ray and his family well defended who notably was actually related to ray flees into hiding he he deactivates his facebook account which i believe one person testified had pictures of him with possibly the murder weapon he turns off this phone well read i mean i guess that would be the testimony of sean parker who well the couple individuals in the car testify that defendant was the first to get out and then sean parker testifies that he hears the gun going off so i would say that that would the fender with a handgun that night one person believe it was a forty caliber which happened to be the caliber of the bolt that killed a few meters and comments right and yes that's and that's what i was and that's why i was going to get out if above all else are the numerous incriminating so he boasted that he had in fact postle one in the head explaining he believe that it was katie because because katie was wearing a red hoodie that night unfortunately so it was right after he learned that it was ray he admitted solemnly that he thought he had murdered the right person he he later calls up to sean parker advises him not talk to the police to just write it out because it's no face no case and perhaps most damning when the detective during the second interview ultimately confronts him with the fact that we now know that that it was just shot harder out there with you defendant asked the question when i did it and i would i would invite the court to review that video in the context in which he makes that statement so again numerous incriminating statements and that's in addition to the fact that that there was the eyewitness to the murder who who testified that the shooter was wearing gold chains and had a distinctive blond rules the incident there are there's there's information the record that the photos were uploaded some approximately thirty weeks before the state before the police got them it's not the exact date of when they were taken wasn't established they're able to figure out when the photos were first posted to that social media account to the time when the police got and so there's there's there's not a precise answer but it's somewhere in the neighborhood i think of somewhere between maybe twenty five to thirty weeks across and that's a map and approximation how does that relate to when this incident  then the idea that every murder case in a small town would warrant a change of venue is absurd if for simply the sake of argument and madge and for a moment that the victim that night had not been a twelve year old young boy but had in fact been katie or little henry or one of those other fellas who were known as troublemakers in the area do you think that the average citizen in the area would have been as the motional and s out about two young men with guns as is the sad case of many many today but is simply qualitatively different when you're dealing with a twelve year old boy who was the victim of a shooting it simply is absurd to think that a finding that a change of venue was warranted in this case would be warranted in every single murder case in a small town second to answer on this question about whether there was a continuance the answer is no there was not a continuous offered that's in the record of page seven thirty nine through seven forty the idea of whether regarding the social media photographs whether this was a mistake or purposeful there is zero indication that this was a mistake on the  part when it came up when defense counsel first realized it and brought it up the state's attorney didn't say hey i'm sorry i made a mistake i didn't realize anything didn't say anything at all he just dropped it and i think that is the biggest indication that that was not a mistake it was in fact a purposeful and or in order to get those photographs them and this they the state now admits that access to guns was simply not an issue in this case which are there supports craters argument that these the evidence is there remaining evidence against prayer was not overwhelming the jury have many reasons to doubt the state's version of events again parker had a long history of violent encounters with katie and little henry and he may have not been in the bar night that night but he was just as drunk as the other he was armed he was in the car and he was in the alley too he did go to the funeral but he was also noted as acting real paranoid and he also fled the area everybody scattered in the wake of this event furthermore wow kreider allegedly made numerous unfortunate comments for about this case how do we know about those comments from parker and runnels both of whom were granted immunity deals and munity inherently involves a significant amount of the of involvement from the state and finally there was there's helen horton's testimony which again she's related to anthony runnels she claimed to be able to see things from across the street at night her testimony is simply not enough to overcome the circumstantial evidence and i agree with opposing counsel that i do encourage you to him to view the video mr writers interview because the idea that his statement when i did it when heard on the video is some kind of confession it's simply it's just not true when he was responding to that when the officer when the detective was saying you know we know when you did or whatever the question was to to prompt this response he said when i did it it was totally incredulous it was in no way a confession and in fact it was never even used at trial as a confession so with that mr carter again asked this court