please the court and this case is not about whether the state may use yet to be tried cases as modus operandi evidence at the trial of mario via it can nor is this case about whether the state can use yet to be tried cases in aggravation at sentencing it may this case asks the question should the state be permitted to use evidence of yet to be tried cases in aggravation at sentencing and as modus operandi operandi evidence the victim of another case testified not testified you got two points in time so i can't figure out it sounds as if you want to write when the when the judge sentenced in the first case this defendant mr via multiple trials the state continued its relentless prosecutions until they got the result that it wanted that's what happened here so he's saying it's unfair he's saying it violates due process fourteenth the yet to be tried cases as aggravation had this been a football game we would have expected a referee to throw out a flag saying unnecessary roughness and this been a soccer game we would have expected a yellow car court and we can't make rules so even if we were to agree with he we've got to follow the supreme court precedent which does not agree with you so maybe just yesterday the united states supreme court announced a new rule this i'm told through that i understand you're an intermediate appellate court i also understand that mr bia had the the right to raise this issue in the trial court then i had the duty to raise it on his i'm standing before you today as the trial lawyer who raised the issue and if that's a big you disagree with me and i said i i understand what i'm about to hear good reasons why you may disagree with me though of course or shelley are all from were used as yet to be tried to aggravation and modus operandi of events at trial number one we shouldn't have to go through a trial because if because jeopardy attaches morning once again mary bono and on behalf of the people i made a jurisdictional argument in a motion to dismiss and then i made another i raised it again in the brief and the reason is because under no set of circumstances does the defendant have a six  for af basis for raising this beside the label he puts on it he does put a label on it but beyond the label it simply doesn't meet any of the omens of a six zero four f appeal which requires him to make a double jeopardy claim and obviously you have a duty to look at your own jurisdiction you're going to do that but on the merits double jeopardy protects against a couple of things that protects against a second prosecution for the same or fence after i don't acquittal or a conviction it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense now the defendant in his argument having states that he's examining the issue of aggravation but if you read the brief he also complains that it's fundamentally unfair to prosecute separate offenses  at the trial level so i've responded to both of those issues with regard to the trial level emily's case is the case that he's identifying this case number one and emily's case resulted in a conviction so obviously we're not talking about  offense acquittal pong we're talking about same offense conviction prom but these sexual offense in this case is a separate case emily is separate from the one who separate from kelly who separate from shelley each one was sexually assaulted by this de and physician the nurse for chicago police detectives a police officer and evidence technician a criminologist a d n a expert forensic scientists forensic biologists and a former u s aid well to prove beyond a reasonable doubt crimes against emilie we also used and sought permission from the courts to introduce other crimes evidence through kelly and warren and it was for three purposes for modus operandi for identity and well for propensity now the other crimes evidence provided crud gratian families testimony that the senate was her offender amalie was awakened in the middle of the night it was about three thirty in the morning she was sleeping in her apartment the defendant came in and in the darkness put a pillow case is overturned on appeal are you going to reinstate those cases and then you wait that one out now or you try the second one but you don't pile it on the first one you pile on the last well actually the you don't understand what we're looking at here we've got d evidence in this case that's what i was talking about all the different witnesses but in the d n a evidence case what we get now are the fences that say consent it's the middle of the night well which should be having sex with me it's three thirty in the morning it's three thirty in the morning she gets a stranger she doesn't know who this is she was a world the first case which you have to make a decision right because we don't know i mean we have cases where you would think you could win and then these and then the jury is like we're not sure about the identification of d n a but a claim of consent and so we've got to do what is appropriate and our bill and we did exactly that here then there's no double jeopardy issue with regard to any and in terms of his sentence when we get to talking about his sentence so in terms of the trial there is no double jeopardy issue with regard to the trial we introduced it for proper purposes there was a limiting instruction before each witness testifying lauren and kelly that you were to consider it only for these three purposes at the close of the case there's a limiting instruction given to the jury that says you know only to consider it for these purposes identification modus operandi and a propensity and so here you're limited to do that and all of those things together mean that what he was convicted of in emily's case is what he did to emily and that corroborative evidence went to her identification went to his signature pattern of those things were proper and when you look at the end of asian in the piece we don't have multiple punishments for the same offenses here  violation in that case because a trial court has the right to consider the complete criminal history and when you're asking me about this particular piece and lee's victim impact statement was introduced but most importantly perhaps was the defendant's record of prior convictions he has a texas burglary another assault another burglary a battery a solicitation of a sexual act when the peeping resisting arrest and criminal trespass a cop oh in his background that was probably before the court in addition to calling the police officer a collins testified that when he interviewed the defendant defendant said he had so many attacks on women that he couldn't remember the addresses or dates of those attacks but we wouldn't be here if i in that case if you remember it was a defendant who were killed as many as eighteen women who had confessed to killing eighteen women in a very sadistic way and claim a double jeopardy violation and in that case the court said the double jeopardy clause does not prevent a state from selecting a penalty independently for each crime a defendant commits there's no cap on the total punishment for the extra crimes each additional crime crewed so fresh exposure to punishment and is extra deterrence for extra offenses at some chicago and he continued his conduct and eventually he will have a sentence that will effectively be a natural life sentence through a period of years but this court will look at each of those sentences independently of each of the appeals and each court will determine whether we've produced sufficient evidence to find him guilty whether all of the evidence was properly admitted and whether that sentence is proper so before this court is simply a case that says we don't think the state should go forward on these individual cases and try him for these individual cases and we don't even know what the sentences are going to be or whether a jury is going to find him guilty we just don't think the state should be able to do it because they've got enough well the answer is only register your determines what is an independent power punishment and the o your said for each separate sexual assault that you commit with the violence of the robber that you've committed the crime is entitled to sentence you and in this case the court had a tremendous wrong criminal history as well as other aggravating factors in addition to  and raped women on the south side of chicago that's not the reason i was yes i'm looking it isn't as if i were the prosecutor and i wanted to you know since by the way how can i try these away because your argument is look you know it sounds as if you're saying to really push now the argument that you know ok put him in a is and i'm all that let's you know put him in the sentencing to is is more than and that's why you're here i would ask you not to be so quick dismiss the difference between the bus stop rapist at the north side rapist because it's deeply troubling that this lawyer as i hope would be to any fair minded person but the real issue in this case is one thing is it mean that you may not be punished multiple punishments for the same offense what does that phrase for me and i submit to the court that it means that when you're in cheek and and shelly reardon was in fact imposing a punishment for that offense yet to be tried offenses and if the state were permitted to trial a plea yet to be tried cases no multiple punishments would