capitalizing on that misconduct by arguing to the jury in open close every battle arguments that the fates of warfare i'm happy to entertain questions as to the other two are the issue here i'm an argument one i shooting the state's proffer they never told the trial court how they were going to present this argument and the trial court naturally presumed that the state knows a competent way to introduce evidence certainly there are many many cases of illinois were very heavily weighted by supplying tony's testimony that he was a gang member if hacking is not a game member then he does not have the motive attributed to him by the state and the only evidence here that  he knows and he's known him a long time doesn't know if it's a gun isn't a question for the jury to determine who they believe you know your there are many many safeguards in place and there are clear there are clear there are clear paths to the introduction of gang all the law of illinois whether or not it was the arguments are flowing from evidence that is claimed to be in the correct and so what you have to do is show that this was plain you're right jury that i'm a gang member or a police officer says i took a statement that i just don't think you're you're arguing that the inflammatory arguments are what caused the the problem here that tonight you're gang member then he testified in court about all of these things that led up to the shooting that he wasn't present for right but i'm not sure that you know you're effectively telling us doesn't stand up and say i'd like to offer a competent inflammatory evidence that i can read and was a gang member and i want to tie him to all these earlier escalating events that the only person i'm going to present to testify but the he wasn't there and i'd like you to overlook that and then i'm going to to introduce gang evidence particularly gang evidence because there are so many safeguards in place you know illinois courts have said that yang evidence is regarded with considerable disfavor and there is a deed that there and widespread prejudice against street gangs and gangs are regarded with considerable suspicion so there are many many numerous cases that outline exactly how gang evidence can be admitted and how it can be used in trial now the state's argument hinges on all these cases where the trial court maybe this is what all of the state's cases are talking about whether or not that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative and those cases are attacking the trial court evaluation about the prejudice but evaluation we're not arguing that it's more prejudicial than probative because we're arguing it was not admissible in the first place  or incompetent because it was the search varistors of the language because the state was one of the first with this is a trial of the state still have the rest of trial to prove it up and it's not the defense lawyers burden to call attention have that point to the fact motive absolutely not your honor no certainly not they could have they could have that and that's the thing you know that because it wasn't a motive a motive was an element none the less they hammered home yang witness from the very through there's not a single argument here except for a page i think it's not even a page two pages cites a single case that inadmissible gang testimony was at the trial court here ill louka you're right that's because we are not arguing that it was a trial court error we're arguing that the prosecutor introduced this evidence knowing the rules about how you get gang evidence and  was he was cutting the grass a neighborhood we don't know if he was a person who lived in the neighborhood he wasn't a game he did not admit to being a gang member larry spears who lived across the street identified  the passenger in the van through his front door window through security bars through a storm door fifty feet away in an alley when he was already afraid for his fiance and daughter who were about to return so he was afraid both of those were hoarder identified identified him as a person he knew and at trial he testified that his identification was mischaracterized by the state as an identification of the shooter so those were the identifications so in all of this was again the weight of this mr williams identification may have been influenced by the state's heavy hammering that hiking redmond was again remember are there any questions on the other opportunities where as rival gang members there gangs were fighting and as a human explains this escalating gang incidences that culminated in the shooting of the victim were all based on with being perceived as a lack of respect and support to have a unique knowledge because it was this one quote in the cross and extrapolate it to all of the incidents having done this it's very clear he was at some of them and then also ignore the direct testimony and we have to look at the full record here and to the extent that this contradicts his important point the state is talking about this evidence that the red van was driving around in casing the area and the neighborhood and all of that was attributed to him there was an objection to that casing testimony that was witnesses williams involve the police police officer testimony he said he knew that the defendants were gang members because of their tattoos that shoot gang insignia and gang initials the defendants in that case also it made it that they were gang members and there was information and what was presented in this case at trial here we have the assertion of a rival gang member that hacking was a gang member and that is not sufficient under any illinois law to  beyond that the weight that was given by the jury to these identifications was certainly impacted by the hammering home that this was a gang member that he was the face of gang warfare that he was out to settle a gang rivalry so  i think that the gang evidence permeated every single aspect every moment of this trial so it's difficult to away in a vacuum identification testimony by strangers who were afraid and across that he wasn't out there for the champagne and the stick throwing when he's asked that as for the money flash so quantised talking about the practice as between these two sides of the bridge everybody flashes money sequences he flashes money  flashy does not testify to a discrete money flash that set off this purported escalating events and that's the same thing is true for the fist fight he says in the past he is engaged in this fights with team and those things were nothing personal he does not say that being gauged in this fight this fight that followed from the initial money fight money flashed instead his testimony established that there were tensions simmering all along so it's not clear just as she says it's not clear that he was or was not there for the money flash upon tony's testimony explicitly says he was not there at least for the champagne champagne spray and  descriptions of the that's really has nothing to do with whether or not his first statement that this defendant is a gang member that's where you see a lot of the night other all these other things don't help known about these and the cases who talk about the talk about getting evidence say that again evidence has to be tied not only to the defendant but to the to the actions that led to this and became doesn't have an association with the flash