here i want to focus on the prejudice that mr randall suffered at his trial when officer holger and detective whitmore were allowed to testify of their lay opinion identification of mr man as the man inside the car as seen on the surveillance to the st issue on the lay of can in testimony the illinois supreme court in thompson has made it very clear that yes a law enforcement officer can give lay opinion identification testimony if they have some interaction with the defendant that makes  to the jury in reaching that opinion in the end if certain procedures are put in place to make sure that the jury is instructed proxies simply that they don't have to put any weight and that of officers test testimony about the dedication and are not to draw any kind of adverse surveillance exhibit twenty two is from the rear and basically cuts off the head exhibit twenty one is a photo from the front but is here cuts off the head from the top ups they always use red cloth nothing that the jury will deliberate had any facial features of the man inside that car which shows that the error here is difficult and why expose the balances because all the jury had to go on was some of the video footage there walks through and then the opinions of these two officers that  the shooter and that was what they had to decide and that in a missile testimony when the officers were no better position means that this big st prong plane air and that makes it a thumb on the scale for the jury making the there wasn't really an issue for the court there we don't have that situation here counsel would you agree most of them there are a shift was based on what could be viewed as if they have five factors or factors group yes your honor there was a lot of testimony properly about characteristics and we're not taking issue with that depend on where you are though the officer was careful absolutely and that's kind of showing is that they they this redirect examination he says mr randall or the defendant so those three times and why that's prejudicial because it's those are basically bookended between the interrogation which is the purpose of our nd argument about unreasonable four minutes we take no issue there is information coming out from mr randall that he wasn't there he went to his cousin's house he addressed the names and all that's established by the th minute by the end of this informant is the last half is detective more becoming more aggressive accusing you are the shooter that's you pointing downwards fontes a photograph taken from the surveillance video from inside the car wash and aggressively calling him a liar so they her unlike him is that  the defendant's changing demeanor or changing story or new information that changes or attacks or contradicts mr randall consistently said he was not in vol all that information raised saying that he was involved or was present for a while but let me g would suggest that he's telling the truth i mean a defendant or a defense attorney were originally considered that's i guess but that can be brought up by asking the detective did he ever admit something no it's showing the office there's no value of showing him denying it and getting the pulse of the state's case especially when this is the identity was the only kind of issue of who was the man in the car which i understood i think probative versus highly prejudicial highly prejudicial doesn't help your client because the attorney might have thought that was a good idea hartmann says it's not a good idea we don't want to different facts with a man change his story and talk about hurting this child kind of takes the same idea he did change that came in but the idea is that was critical redacted counsel didn't need to attempt to keep it out never really argued that at all that's this theory he certainly didn't try to use i liar and that he was there six separate testified that mr wrenn was that man they had never met him before his face was obscured in the photos they gave to the jury and the reason why they spent so much time as you want to mention about the characteristics is that they were trying to hold the line about what it's therefore not properly before this court is forfeited it's also fortunate for the reasons that it was not raised in the trial court the senate never asked for these procedures in the trial or he can't establish a player and in fact does not argue plain air as to this issue because in his reply brief which again is that argument is not properly before this court he mentions plain error only in is properly in his opening various and that is because the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming as whitmer testified and as shown in the surveillance video entrance before the shooting and is wrapped around his face as he walks back to through the car wash after the shooting and the footage from a different camera just outside the car wash also shows the man wearing a light under shirt with the same that line is that shown under defendant's red shirt something red around his neck and a wrist band on this right wrist as he points a gun in his right hand there's footage from another camera which shows the victim standing with two men who one walked out of the car wash and turned eastbound facing the victim and the others we also have the video of course of defense interview with whitmer and in that video in portions of defendant does not object to the greed that he was at the scene he was depicted in photos that whitmarsh showed him from the surveillance video which showed his distinctive shoes and his distinctive other clothes the jury could also view defense features and build in court and in the video and see that they were the same as those of the man wearing defendants to stick to pulling the video so as also as the evidence showed the prosecutor argued that the jury imposed argument in order to find the defendant was not the man in the car washed the true have to find another black male wearing the same clothing a distinct issues the defendant and no one else in the footage captured by the many surveillance videos was wearing appe to any of us arguments or that defense counsel sect of because he can't step was prejudiced there also was no error now a lot of the defendants arguments depend on his characterization of the record which the state would submit is not supported by the records hocker did not give lanyon identification testimony he was very careful to testified the defendant was the brief defendant raises another argument that he didn't raise in his opening review he says that when he objects to research there in witness testimony that the surveillance video showed journal land firing a record they properly if this court was to analyze it according to thompson and the standards for  that was what this court in the supreme court has properly recognised as proper interrogation and in fact this is the jury looking at that interview and any any sufficient evidence or the very precise legal issue that's the error initially identification testimony and that is about the man inside the car wash in on the surveillance court testimony those officers certainly goes to that and it is closely balanced because yes there is t