over the course of eight hours spread over two days in october of two thousand and fifteen bobby archie uttered words to detectives of the peoria police department those police and eventually the state the it is a confession to the murder of tequilla jackson yet these words were uttered by a man who suffered from physical and mental maladies had a verbal i q score of forty four had not taken his prescribed mental health medications that day and was confronted by detectives with mentally course of interviewing techniques and with questions statements and edicts about god and faith and all these factors thus demonstrate that bobby statements to police were not voluntary and should have been suppressed by the circuit court the police here thought they had the killer of tequilla jackson in front of them the moment bobbie showed them the room where ms jackson stayed where bobby's possessions now were and where they saw what they thought was blood in that room from that moment the police never considered another subject and tried for over eight hours to extract a confession from bobby and it was finally after detective curry gave bobby a religious ma the choice to be godless and say he was a cold blooded killer or still be with god instead of the bobby killed jackson in an emotional state and after that bobby finally uttered the words that would be used to convict him a trial quote did god make you emotional like that or are you a cold blooded killer which one is a it's one or the other before he made that statement detective curry had said that god puts emotions in people god put emotions in in w with a crowbar in her room and that had taken her body to the the basement of the house taken downstairs and then at some point tried to take her body up bobby had said that he was religious the police knew he was religious and detective curry in the other officers exploited bobby's faith to coerce is the admissions and statements  day of the interview he in the interview video he is making calls and asking the police to get a hold of i believe was social worker or his counselor to help get the medication that he needs for his  urge this court to why i know that the court watches the the record or watches the videos reads reads the record in its entirety what i do are for the court in this is to is to watch the entirety of the video here including all of the moments where the police aren't even in the room and speaking with bobby this is about eight dollars to eight dollars and a half hours over the course of two days will hear dozens of times the bobby tells the police that he did not kill jackson he had nothing to do with us including times when no one's in the room his just talking to himself  changes on the nd day again he has had not had medication where he's his he's rocking back and forth his body language appears to have changed from the previous day and the court should pay particular attention to bobby's body language after he makes what the state used as as a confession to the murder mystery and what police i'm sure would say could probably be viewed as why him bobby was telling the truth but i think it should be interpreted the moment we're body is actually lying where the crush of the physical mental pressures the police have exerted upon him is broke down  now made a not voluntary statement to police because the totality of the circumstances demonstrate the statement to statements to police about terri is statement should have been suppressed by the circuit court and because archie statements were the cornerstone of the state's case against him without those statements that cannot be shown that the state could have proved bobby guilty beyond a reasonable doubt a trial therefore this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in the circuit this issue before i move on to the nd issue in my brief i don't believe there are moving on to the nd issue your honor obviously if the court grants relief on the st issue the court does not need to reach the nd issue of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim however if the court does make a ruling on the nd issue might prove instructive if the cases remanded back to the circuit court trial counsel was ineffective in several areas and they prejudice bobby and the prejudice was all related to bobby's defense and theory of the case that another person a richard because he was the person that killed the quote jackson not properly admit to quilla jackson's statements against richard migs east eight months that she made an order of protection hearing about a year prior to her death those statements were barred by the court however counsel did not attempt to seek admission of those statements under acceptable hearsay exceptions such as the state of mind or former testimony w however when the trial occurred counsel never actually presented the fact that the order of protection existed all counsel did was asked two of the detectives on the case whether or not they were aware than order protection had been obtained by ms jackson against mr mcgee both detectives said they were not aware of that fact and the counsel never actually admitted the order of protection at trial so the jury was never given the fact in order protection actually exist mr jackson was his wife and that he loved her that counsel could have been impeached mr muzi with the order of protection not only the fact that existed but also ms jackson's statements against i didn't there was not trial strategy for me to not ask mr mukasey about the order of protection and what counsel appeared to have thought was the court's order was going to stand even  if he objected or try to bring in the order of protection testimony and thus didn't didn't bring it up it appeared in hindsight with a motion for a new trial counsel thought that he should allow evidence of a hammer which was found in the home into evidence at trial where the the state argued was that well bobby had said that he killed ms jackson with a crowbar so it's not a hammer with friends equally tested there's no blood on it so the hammer is not the murder weapon the court then says well there will be no evidence of a hammer coming in a trial and then what happened before photographs that were taken of a hammer  a trial and there was actually a video of a walk around when the search warrant was conduct of the home and then the snippet where the hammer was found was an edited out so the jury did not see where the hammer was found this was a relevant piece of evidence it was found in the home where the murder occurred ms jackson was killed by blunt force trauma the murder weapon was never found counsel should have been allowed to present evidence of the hammer and a firy that miss jackson may have been killed by that hammer the state could have then try to rebut that testimony or evidence with their own witness the defense's argument that the hammer may have been the murder weapon but because the state or because you need the court did not allow the hammer to be introduced never dense counsel was not able to present a defense and when you couple the lack of the paper being admitted to evidence with the fact that in the order protection testimony ms jackson said i believe i believe i recall it was found in a room with some items in it that may have been were the other two people that were staying in the house  lived if i recall it was that's where it was found there was there was a bunch of boxes and things in that room for my recollection of the search warrant video i think that's where it was found yes because he had moved into ms jackson's bedroom and he had stayed in the other room correct your honor and but that was the room that then the other two people living in the house when i was lighting and when the police showed up on that day in october q is not actually presented in the record but later on the prosecutor seems to indicate that his full scale i q was fifty five  also the psychologist talks about bobby's schizophrenia and that felt that at the time of his interview that he was suffering from the symptoms of his schizophrenia when he was interviewed by police  to testify about whether or not bobby could waive his miranda rights whether he was he was able to do that although she noted that his i  particularly over boy q his schizophrenia and did state that he was suffering from symptoms of schizophrenia did not feel that his his mental state at that time made that confession involuntary it really is to be determined human with the some noble mentality as long as the defendant has the capacity to understand and the victim suppose they had been staying which by the way but it kind of indicated that she had moved out two weeks before which i kind of i'm going to get interesting because the body here was found on a  is exactly the same thing that happened here i don't think that there's this is not the kind of coercion not the kind of intimidation that the th amendment seeks to protect that somehow of mission or access i should say to the house beside the defendant so if you take a look at the to the totality of the evidence in this case i think that the evidence is more than sufficient one of the things that a recent mile that the world is slowly opening back up or flu pandemic i've been in will do is start again officiating high school basketball and i was officiating the game last night fall that i called as an attentional foul and i think virtually everyone agreed including most of the visitor home fans that that was an intentional foul other than the coach of  the team or i caught it on and the reason i bring this up is that the totality of the circumstances and that moment one team's being down the word being yelled red red red expecting a foul to knowing the circumstances of a basketball game how it happens but it was the result of the play which when i put all the totality of those circumstances together told me well this is an intentional foul and i think  what i know what i suppose i would be doing in your shoes justices and what most people would do is when you look at the totality of the circumstance in this case part of the thing that has to factor in is what circumstance can make a statement not voluntary even if the statement afterwards is the truth we would obviously have a case with with physical court coersion where you're beating or or depriving a  defendant of food or a relink regardless of what comes afterwards here virtually everything that bobby adventure eventually admits to you could even look at  arguably that he would have had knowledge of just because he simply lived in the house or the police were kind of feeding him bits of information except for one and this is the one that the police thought was the most important thing was the extension cord that was tied around with mr jackson's legs as she was brought up the stairs as what bobby said was wrapped around her legs when she was in the trash sam i'll admit that that is one piece of information th police never mentioned at all in their interviews before bobby brought it up and so you can look at this and say well bobby had to have murdered mr jackson because he gave a piece of information that no one agave on the only the killer would know but what bobby said is that and what his defense was is that richard because e ms jackson's ex boyfriend had killed her bobby had also said before he had made it missions that were used against him that the richard because he had killed mr jackson and he had helped clean up afterwards so it's very possible that all of the evidence of the status talking about that yes could be shown that bobby actually committed the murder could also be that all bobby possibly did was conceal the homicidal death or had knowledge of mr jackson's death after it occurred and he actually was not the one that murdered her i think that's important for the court to consider is that here there actually is an ulterior of alternative theory that bobby was trying to present at trial and when you look at the evidence and thinking of that alternative theory that mr biggs he was the one that actually possibly murdered ms jackson that considering that and then the totality of the circumstances this court should find that bobby statement was not voluntary and that his statement should have been suppressed and we asked that this his sentence and conviction be reversed this case be remanded back to the circus or an order that bobby statements be