court my name is christopher mccoy from the office of the state appellate defender and i represent mr boies of a prosecutor is not simply an advocate for one party a prosecutor has a duty to seek justice these may be easier for purposes of the legal argument into preserved and not preserved objections or for issues well yes you know something some of these issues are preserved some are not preserve but they all need to meet you sort of in the cumulative effect of what happened at trial both to give context to the preserved errors and as player under under both forms of player analysis the rules of evidence in illinois and are you know not how one by one were arguing that these pieces of evidence were not impossible under the rules of evidence mostly because of under jury had already accomplished the goal of three point one set however juries are routinely that they can't make their decisions in tell they actually begin their deliberations obviously closing arguments occur before deliberations actually and even occurs before the jury has received their final instructions so the prosecutor is telling jurors it's too late to consider this instruction which you haven't even heard  the instructions told the jury specifically all of them tell the jury this or the law is contained in these instructions are given those closing arguments are not evidence the law is contained in these instructions your duty to f you know the routine instructions have been given but still the court has held that it was reversible error and you know furthermore the state's attorney and you know this also comes from cas judge sitting there giving directions to the jury will know by the the armies these the jury is hearing is the jury's here you're going to hear this instruction but don't consider it so you know g everything that occurs in this case it's not it's the instructions here tonight sure all the errors that affected this trial from the very beginning from the states some of the first words the state says in its opening statement all the way through hours rebuttal argument i fancy it's one reading and reading that you are taking is that he's saying you don't need to worry about this although he never said to disregard it could mean another reading of this particular statement which i also have in front of me  indicate that you have heard this you have had a chance to listen you can you know in maybe common sense says you've thought about it and now you're going to go back and get instructions from the jury isn't prosecutor at this point isn't speaking you know simply about mr darcy's testimony he's speaking about this particular instruction and because of that it's he is telling the jury th murderer in fact he was had pled guilty by a mentally ill to this murder at the time of trial or had not been sentenced so he had an incentive to trade mr moore's off in the worst light possible he was also  not i mean this is not a sufficiency of the evidence shells that we're making here we're just saying that if this pervasive parents of misconduct did not occur or that there is a reasonable probability the jury could multiple hours of videotape the he was put through and his trial testimony were there any serious inconsistences in that testimony there's references specifically to defense counsel's opening statement to questioning the witnesses again just try gene tactics and the fact that he's calling this a trick that the jury shouldn't be fooled by it and the fact that the the that the jury should be persuaded why did you listen to that full statement they would have been laughing afterwards because the prosecution made a significant mistake in that particular a mistake of how i'm going to believe they think you are who they think you're zero on the and they are i guess answer the question more straightforwardly this prosecutor's comments are not focused on the evidence they're focused on what defense counsel did i think that's the real difference in this case and that's proper ignores what is really going on in the states and was there any further questions we were just is is the judge responsible to get off and say ladies and gentlemen the jury disregard that particular question or disregard that if nobody's asking the judge to do that no the the position that just issued a few short months after the death of the fiance mr burns off began to you know deep into our what was the purpose of  a case with which there is a speed from the moment they began dating in the became closer to the moment that they've you know there's riposte shortly after a pregnancy a baby and then shortly after that  the murders on angela's family what context does them add to the case assuming that the jury could figure out from common sense the deeds that were and issue just the relationship as to how they began why they became and it's just the context of the relationship and i was meaning did did they want to portray him in a negative light turns context that it isn't wasn't that the purpose at the context of how they began and then they quickly moved on from there so if it were a pain the bad light the evidence are simply the record doesn't support that it was to you know and the defendant says not he had some sort of computer background to go into hacking and to look into people's people's computers at that time defendant stated two men with no darcy present i could really use someone conversations between darcy and the police in florida one in which he denied involvement in the second which he started to tell this to work this his testimony in terms of what transpired in why he was part of the shooting and you know i think when you've been in the part three of our argument there's a significant number of cooperation and a lot of these  a as we argued before the trial court was not credible he stated that he was there because they had a history of celebrating birthdays at the casino yet it was just him and his brother it wasn't is this history of celebrating with you know a big family family event with cousins and whatnot it's just him and his brother died on monday night when the defendant has custody of his son you know his father was sick so they decided not to go it was you know the evidence from the casino show that it's a big thing that they've been doing for several years there is not you know there is no evidence on a player's card such as the defendant's or his brother's players card that he showed up or that they went to the casino multiple times those i mean those are again those are things in terms of credibility as to what the poking undercutting even if this court were to find any sort of a or the error is harmless and that it's overwhelming given the significant amount of cooperation and narcisse testimony to support that this is what this is what occurred and to find that the defendant's referring to the fact that the defendant that does seem was on the stand for over three days both in direct and in cross examination there is ample evidence for an analysis and given it you know given the amount of time he was looking at the context of the argument and the state in this case that whole the comments were in directly related to the theory of the case and persuasiveness and the credibility of the theory of the defendant's case not attack on the defendant's theory of the case which was the defendant of angela still loves her and he's a good you know and so therefore is a good father why do work this out and the defense and the d trusted because he wanted to fabricate his testimony data in order to get a better deal and to board and or he was psychotic and hallucinating these events and in response to that were saying we said look at this evidence it's difficult to make fabrication when you say you know the fabrication theory is undermined by the fact that you look at the tapes and that in reviewing the record i didn't find what often happens when juries were picked in all three of those who picked promontories before were defense attorney of the state's attorney will say now understand these and you promise you will listen to all of this and the defen attorneys say and you promise you listen neither attorneys said that during the course of jury selection so what other comments do this jury make that they were referring to in terms a party or more all as the jury even that oath you take as as a juror you have to find him guilty and if you don't do that you're not living up to your oath you're not living up to your duty as a juror that's not what happened here and and what happened here is that it's receding that you you know you did agree that you were going to follow the law and you did agree you know and  statement there was a discussion on the accomplice being accountable for someone else's actions and that is important that that happen you know that is to follow the law which is look at a lot of terms of why would someone legally accountable for another person's you know we therefore believe that you should be found that the defendant should be found guilty to go there to your initial question justice hutchinson i must a difference from the old and promise think there is an issue depending upon the context in which it was used here there's reversal your views and because the case was close your position is the case is not hopefully grounds well if this case is not closely balanced and if the evidence as presented during at two or three week period of time was so overwhelming why did the prosecution made statements that were careless in some respects don't worry about it it's too late you've already analyze the prosecution make those arguments and these were seizing prosecutors forth by the defendant during the closing argument in terms of closely balanced or not they are making their argument and they are making in response to what  nicholas fever those were not just cases of witnesses sort of going off off script or the state not knowing what their witnesses are going to say these are very deliberate lines of questionings designed to get out the specific pieces of information well why would that be can textual trying to send a context for what's happened in this case i guess the state's position was one of the issues that they were raising is the this the in this relationship whether or not he's alive or not all to give the context that they're talking about all they need to say words angela enjoying met through a mutual friend they started dating near the end of two thousand and seven that gives the context of the timing and gives the context of how they met which leads up to his arguments it imploding bet if mr blair is off to not do what the state is claiming he did then quote he's not guilty of anything and he walks out the door and he can go fight some more for custody nicholas now it's true custody was discussed their trial but that was custody before these offenses as a possible motivation for these offenses here the prosecutors comic is not what happened before trial but what happened after what happened after trial statement a problem because the custody battle it actually is between father and mother it should not go beyond those issues well because of this state as you point out all these reasons why mr borzou off is a bad father and then they're getting the jury to think wow if if we acquit him then you know maybe there's some danger to nicholas maybe there's other bad consequences that's not what the jury should be focused on they should be focused on the evidence that's presented at trial and just to answer your puffing up his chest or trying to seem important that that's not a to loose soliciting murder i mean this the actual facts the actual what he did to make him accountable only comes from to step over the line warrants a new trial in this