arrived from a clear violation of the illinois you struck me statute as if this were not out there were critical discovered violations that were discovered or covered only through trial itself and finally at the end of the case there was the agreement with the defendant to serve as a confidential source that the expectation and understanding was that the defendant would do other targets when identified one was clearly identified and equal or greater argued that he was the express lee promised immunity and what the trial for found was that there was not such an expressed promise in the union and what actually happened when you read the record is that the party is going back in for her over whether or not the phrase working off charges this really isn't right and while charges whether it meant non prosecution or immunity or whether it meant something else like i'll talk to the present case and for you exactly right to those that may be two different thing i think yes i agree totally resources and i think that's a critical distinction that it's good to talk about now and i think that that the trial court was finding that there was nobody stress thomas to dismiss the case but all of the other evidence around through their actions through their forbearance through their reliance upon each other was that jason would at least be able to work on his part of the cooperation agreement and justice not what what did not happen was that's called best communication between the police and the c's attorney's office never happened because they arrested jason merely days after his most successful operation and so even ed by agreement signed ever use the terms working off or you won't be charged with that attention or so when castro himself in the trial did use the reference when castro himself said this he was not exactly clear about what the agreement was was he i think well hall last year there was the supervisor and talked about how that would be up bring charges at all or whether there would be something less but here's what's critical here is that didn't happen either and so i will confess the argument in the trial court focused on whether or not it wasn't there a promise of at least a reduction in criminal liability isn't that exactly what the whole asking said which was that we would talk to the supervisor and say well this is what the guy did and maybe this is trying to go off as we choose not to charge it or maybe there would be something that he uses the phrase something less so if we accept even that even if we accept that it was something last when did so from january to april but one of the reasons that and we've heard this in many arguments where we've had similar situations is the charges are not placed against the  confidential party so that people don't know that he has been arrested or she has been arrested and in today's world where you can go into the clerk's office and all of the name you can see if somebody is that arrested  four so this is a way to protect the the informant and so your argument that we could tell by their forbearance and now we were argument that it took that much time for them to investigate his claim or his charges doesn't make any sense in light of the fact they're trying to protect their informant i misspoke and mark my point one of these i should have sent more simply drug investigations take months and this very case supports and all i'm coming on is framework you're proposing which is that this has to be kept confidential but what i mean is that there was never a deadline imposed on jayson there was never any statement that said by him or in two thousand some team we need to see through boss or or we have to do this well there was never any time frame but you how do you go back and try to negotiate with the state's attorney or the da or the only state police after you've already shown that you can get more people hasn't he completely revealed himself and exposed himself as somebody who is still involved in the drug trade and somebody who can still get other people and so once he goes down that road are any amount of identifying traces of talking to them about what he knows even talk about how much supply he was able to break once he did all that he has relied upon which is exactly what we see insta pinsky what's different insta penske is that is that in this case they just arrested him in the middle of the cooperation even the only reason i was talking about that number of months was i'm just saying it's short right now it's arrested i recall things but that's you know that's because i'm trying to how some of my recollection is that it was a typical it was a typical by rust and my recollection that is in there to answer your question does is that they didn't take any unusual measures to  protection eason's identity i will say is my understanding there's certainly no evidence in the record that the mallard bost involved any of the same devices are the brazile who later on roscoe situation critical in this case is that there was a violation of the illinois east trucking statute not the th amendment not that not the constitution but the illinois stropping statute and what the state could never and use in this case yes and frankly didn't even tr agent wiring somebody up that's a different moment if i'm putting something on your body you were consenting about we're talking about that is a far cry from devices that we're not even talking about you know vehicle that document is not consent is legal also is there a finding of consent because brosco didn't know about it and the document that justice mclaren referred to is not a document about the cars obviously i have got many other issues in the brief but  fairly fairly well known drug dealers in lake county as soon as he started working with his handler detector test he basically said that that would not be possible but that he would be the defendant told the detective tensioner that it was known on the street that he had popped mallard and that therefore he would not be able to assist shortly thereafter there was continued communication between the defendant and detective test however at some point within a week or so that communication dried up there how did the discussion about let's let things die down a little bit or did that discussion actually happen before the communication dried up or after i believe before right and and i believe that the way if my recollection from the record is that the defendant and i guess if they believed their point that because he was no longer initiating communication that he was no longer going to be able to fulfill the agreement then we exist that there was an agreement typically operate you have to bring in at least two or three other targets and they have to be and amounts that are at least as much as what you were facing and in general what they wanted were targets who were at a higher level than the person himself right he was looking at some place between fifteen and i think what twenty maybe twenty with the highest in his or why was he actually know so you know i time was ever discussed i don't know that a limitation on time was discussed i think what was discussed was the nature of the defendant's communication and what the defendant could deliver and i think that that i believe that they haven't basically what the core of the discussions were about so they each made a really assumptions that is the defendant and the law enforcement with respect to time law enforcement saying he can't deliver so we're not going to wait that based upon the premise that you're supposedly trying to make by and if you're trying to avoid making vines because you want to slow down why would you make phone calls you aren't apparently discuss you know what the bears did last week and you're discussing whether or not you do or you don't have a sale and if he's quote unquote told them to it should die down why what's what's the disadvantage what's the non benefit for him and i call in as opposed to returning phone calls if i say i'm not interested in and having my rough you know reshingled why should i call them a nd time and say i just part of the discussion and maintaining contact may well be i have no reason to believe that things have not kept down but again when one is facing six classic charges of your delivery there might be an incentive to maintain draconian viewpoint of the fact that in your opinion at least in order to make contact it basically means that you have actually have to make affirmative contacts as opposed to responding affirmative i think you know again with the we're looking at a situation where the defendant had a significant incentive to maintain contact and ultimately to see if you're going to be able to develop  supposed to communicate their own which you're calling and say i would like to do some sales but things haven't died down well above so i'm just calling in because i want to make sure that you understand that assume that the defendant had contacts and he could determine whether in fact things were hanging out and that would be something to want to communicate with him for is there any conversation or any testimony in this record that since defended was convinced that the st louis pot mallard that they wish to have now judge matthews in an effort to keep him off the streets so we didn't get her is was there any testimony like that that occurred no there was not and i think that in some respects the feeling was perhaps that may have been part of the trigger of your arrest that it was safer to have him off the street than that but there wasn't any i don't recall a discussion on the record seriously about finding ways to protect him been involved in the mail i think it's certainly a reasonable concern that you know their best i could not be reasonable but my recollection is that the record doesn't go into much then much surveillance activities the fact that she agreed to wear a wire the only way to view that is that she's consenting to surveillance whether it's wearing a wire or whether it's having her car where she was told not to touch anything in her car which on some level i would think would give you notice that they have put something in her car as well but i don't think any i don't think any rational way to view her green it would be that she would not continue to surveil to predict speeding in sales were surveillance would be to make any statement about working off the trail because they did in fact keep saying working up the charges which with something with really ambiguous term and they apparently believe that they can say see if but as to the six yes even though only about four of them were recorded the other two weren't yes and still the jury acquitted of the two that were not recorded and convicted and those that were did meet did officer i mean he's working off kind of a time in the drug business a term that people understand or does it have to be fine did mr banks ever say what does ha mean you know i honestly don't know i think that mr banks assume that the charges would go away which which is which in fairness is consistent with what the actual agreement was and to pinsky but there will not necessarily be agreement here think i think it would not be unreasonable for a defendant to assume that there would be consideration going with their degree big big nature to consideration might be a matter of dispute greenville specifically says he will only be up to the state's attorney to make that determination but to the extent that the defendant did in fact deliver to the three transaction initial contact from the defendant so i assume of the state's attorney's office and made the ultimate determination i don't want you assuming the record is silent yes to give what the record says is that detective state before the arrest warrant was issued i believe so i believe the record reflects that they can take things turn i don't need at the time the arrest warrant was issued i'm referring to if they told the state's attorney about what was going or states the ambiguity i thin that that is true no it's not whoever writes a contract and ergo whoever quote unquote makes an offer orally if it's a orally agreed to it and if i understand it correctly the defendant wasn't the one that started this bargain or this contract and so you're suggesting that under contract law allegation the allegation that officer tasher said that you're going to work off the charges should be interpreted to mean not non prosecution or immunity i after the completed transaction he declined because he believed that it was known that even if in the old friend there so it wouldn't be a matter of saying that it would only be in favor of the state it would be that each side would have to meet what the hints that they would meet he had originally said he was going to deliver to very large drug dealers well my question was directed or my inquiry was directed at your prior statement that the trial court found that there were inconsistent aspects of this agreement right and as far as the trial court was concerned that working the charges off didn't mean nine prosecution or of unity i think if i understood and also you have you responded with yes but he didn't inconsistent so if it's inconsistent it has to be inconsistent not between the two witnesses but between the trial courts of law whole or with question of watch perpetration of what not prosecution or what work of the charges  and none prosecution or immunity i believe that the trial court considered the discussions to be significantly of the two is it different points in the discussion in question whether there actually was an agreement i would have to say if one just knew there was a degree meant it was agreement that was entered into the night of the defendant's arrest there was no separate agreements there was no separate agreement that was enter tensioner testified that he repeatedly use the phrase working off the charges with banks in march and he for two thousand and seventeen the agreement is between him some type of surveillance was occurring because she signed a document in january about consensual wearing and that something wasn't going on vs spears is a case which directly addresses an employee of the telephone company that thought they might  reporting this we're talking about cameras that led to the four convictions and i appreciate the court under soon he was only convicted on the counts that involve cameras but that means that the jury we can  didn't believe the confidential and you didn't believe roscoe when brosco was giving her own information so we don't have a harmless error problem here we have the jury doesn't believe brosco and two of the sex and the ones that are recording of course they enter their convictions on could only do one case well might see why the point isn't it and i'm going to explain where i'm coming from so that you can qualify anything you wish to say and that is the part of the you agree appears to be not the state if it wasn't going to wash away the charges that they would at least inform the state of the cooperation and the successes and failures in the totality of the circumstances so that the state could exercise some form of reasoned determination as to what kind of justice should be meted out in this particular situation is there anything in the record to indicate the state fulfilled that portion of their bargain no thank you and i think we have other