who you represent please call substantial violation of his constitutional rights a fair trial where the jury was instructed with an incorrect version of illinois pattern jury instruction three point one five which is the instruction on how to evaluate the reliability of three fifteen indicated or should be dropped but rather it's in the table of the sample set of instructions that's the first time it's actually dropped in nobody ever points it out but you did i pointed out once a concurrence of eight years ago nobody  with jack which i would suggest to you the criminals who attack people want either me asked who are trying to hide make the victim not be able see to do that because they know that that's the first thing i've been doing this all my life and they're wearing a mask evidence about regarding the reliability of the eye and said he was close to that and found that there is pain there so i think the fact that she was certain that it isn't really doesn't go to the fact that it wasn't  excuse me the post conviction acted section one twenty two days three states in no uncertain terms that any claim of a substantial denial of constitutional right this not in a petition is wai this claim is not in the petition in jones the supreme court said very clearly if a claim has not been raised in the petition the appellate courts do not have the supervisory authority to reach  it even under a theory of judicial authority and furthermore in the coal case the court not only read all of what the illinois supreme court said but said that it's not permissible to read an implicit claim of in effect time one of our wonderful institution and he says three fifty was improper the three fifteen instruction provided to my jury the second jury was improper and  because you did not rate the claim that's raised before this court is ineffective assistance of appellate counsel that claim is not in the defendant's petition and a cold the court said courts may not be an implicit claim up ineffective assistan referred until it came down right nobody's addressed and i know but that's it i'm say not this particular issue but that's what the court said in ford in english that when there's a change in the law when there's a want to review since herring has ruled on this issue which is shocking to me and i'm not blaming the attorneys at all that's my point i'm assaulting are the court to review including our supreme court how is it that hearing can be decided when it was decided and no quarter of separate issues one of them went to d n a the fact that he chose not to raise this issue which represents a change in the law hardly represents deficiency of beat that defense counsel didn't file went to  one of the issues on appeal was the sufficiency of dr deadman's expertise in population genetics now since it was upheld on direct appeal there was a two day fry hearing in this case extensive testimony testimony trying so the d n a evidence what was presented very thoroughly it was up to the jury to decide and they found that the match of want to twenty one twenty two hundred was persuasive evidence as to prejudice the defendant put aside everything else defendant couldn't possibly establish that success of this victim knew the defendant she knew him she recognized him right away she had met him several years ago she used to date a friend of his she'd seen him at the y knew this man she if you look at the neil versus big risk factors they all strong when favor of the state she had plenty of opportunity d c see this man it was seven forty five in the morning that was like coming in the protests if you will this isn't the case argument that with regard to i p a three point one five if the jurors found that any one of the factors supplied the witness's testimony was reliable in this case if court will indulge me i'd like to be three sentences the state's closing argument and this is the only reference to this particular instruction to compare to consolidate the state said there's going to be an instruction talking about her ability to identify him think about the situation as circumstances that says contact i don't know what the word was supposed to be think how close she got to him and about who she was identifying when she came in there as well so when she looked at the photographs in the lineup the man who assaulted her him in ten to twenty percent of effort african american males he worked about ten minutes away from the site of the assault and finally the fact that after that when he was in the line if he didn't wear glasses and the victim pointed out he wasn't wearing his glasses in the lineup couldn't find them they found he was hiding them under his armpit so even if you threw out all the identification testimony this defendant still would have been convicted based on the other