attorney beside you but i would like to just mention a few facts in outline form because this case is the facts in this case are so important and they're so unbelievable and if i didn't talk about the facts i really wouldn't have a lot to talk about simply because a lot was so straightforward but so cha begins with he's sitting in the whites a county jail awaiting a charge of aggravated driving under the influence he hires a private attorney the private attorney could not secure didn't know they were going to have one they had not had a time mr morse and his attorney mr morse didn't even know what a four two conference was so the four to conference takes place between the judge the prosecutor and the defense attorney all three lawyers who knew the rules and knew how grave a mistake it was and also knew  shouldn't be doing it without the consent they have be the forum to conference i'm sure it's unclear what happened because obviously there's no transcript of it  his his argument to the court he was not asked to supply anything that he might have to say about his work history family situation other things any kind of an excuse he might have he his input was not i was not acknowledged or asked for the federal constitution and our state has to ssion both afford a criminal defendant the general right to be present not only at trial but i all critical stages of the proceedings from arraignment to sentencing to sentencing so the first step is that the side was this critical is if we were to compensate critical part of the proceedings  under people versus lindsay two thousand to screen court cases it's been recognized that any proceeding where a defendant asserts or waves constitutional rights may be deemed critical the  detainees what is the word he was he was upset as you would imagine and he said that's it i don't want this lawyer can't trust them he tries to come anywhere near my well this was a month after for it to countenance he went into court tried to you have his attorney would draw the judge say this have anything to do with the fact that we have one with you conference you didn't ask chad he asked the lawyer the lawyer immediately says no that's not right even though i was right trial if he if his attorney would have asked for another tourney maybe the other tourney who was hearing the evidence for the first time at trial would not a win would not have and about giving was our contention which was ineffective assistance the new attorney should have said wait a minute this is not right we have to have jack to this world to conference that martians were not given this this determined her found that a valid jury waiver where the defendant was not present in court when it went to jury room written or otherwise was at least discussed there is nothing in the transfers that show that there was a second  struggle over you can have a jury trial if you like nothing like that occurred they just went on to a second still so after the not only is th mentions twice and this is when the judge is in my machine the defendant he says that without the conference the judge would not learn about this information unless the case proceeded to trial i don't believe that he would the court would learn the same extent as it can learn when there is no court reporter and it's a free for all also it's the facts that the prosecutor usually states after after the defendant has entered a plea i believe are usually summarized it's not to the extent that you know the rules pretty and then the defense attorney supposed to let the of the judge know that if there was a family situation work history other things driving record comes in and prior criminal history you're right your honor those rule four zero two d however the the big issue in this case is one of their actual prejudice to find out what's the harm in this case the people would submit there there was no harm for the failure to notify him of this forward to  matter what the judge with regard to the conference larn in the front was still free to of course refuse the judge's recommendation as to sentence which of course the defendant did he did not think guilty  alternately ten months after this conference that shows that this wasn't this wasn't a situation where he was forced into pleading guilty because once conference of course that's not the case something happens whether the end be all and agree that that is no requirement so basically the fact that the only is the people of knowledge in their brief the only presumable prejudice in this case is that by by this conference a current the the defendant cannot substitute judge at that factual basis presented was that the funding was drinking in a bar and drove his vehicle with his sister and his girlfriend i believe in the vehicle he struck the victim in this case was standing just council on this is where we ended up and thank you the people just continue to go back to whether or not there was any harm here and sure there was a violation of the supreme court rule but where's the harm this without his knowledge and then we got a housekeeper dealing with when he's like he just anybody would it make a difference if it was fifteen people meeting in this or two conference i mean it was a everybody agrees that was there and it was a violation of the rules ppened the well i don't are first must say that the supreme court in two thousand and four i can recall the case did not say if you plead guilty you waive all this all the issues constitutional challenges and in this case the you know every so focused on privilege or prejudice it's always beneficial to the state when they have that when they don't know what to do they say well there is no harm anyway but if a defendant came in here drove home with a point one eight one got home woke up the next day didn't remember grabbing her no harm nothing happened he would the illinois constitution and the federal constitution and thank you and if it says and if phillips stays at the fenice absence from the critical stage proceeding will violate his he was not i'm not saying it doesn't say the ultimate conclusion it says was the proceeding unfair and the proceeding was on there and then it also goes on to say or if his absence resulted in a denial of an underlying substantial right he had a right and it was it was known as he had this right because the rule for two makes it perfectly clear you have to be admonished on all of these things and you have to say it's ok and you can't the sheriff had an ex parte conversation with the jurors as well but that this court calling the court called that an ex parte communication and then it went on to say the cumulative effect of the trial court's violations of the defendant's