brief dealing with justified use of force in tony jones did not receive a fair trial whether that was the trial for preventing antonio from presenting justified use of force defense's argument trial counsel failing to tender justified use of force instructions or the prosecutor repeatedly in closing argument misrepresenting justify use of force law all the trial resulting in antonio's convictions was the antithesis of a fair trial the r justified use of force defenses were so crucial to antonio's receiving a fair trial six months before the shooting in this case and twenty of them shot twelve times as he sat in his house and the night house next to this t v room was the house's kitchen and back door just after midnight lest they heard individuals break through the lot property kate of the back yard she went to the window looked outside could not tell who the individuals were and started quote panicking but that's a good thing because people all black and quote were coming toward the gate her grand jury testimony specified quote kitchen not knowing who it was outside and antonio instructed tomorrow to shoot the rifle at the back door and he did the single time now of course when on the other side of that door was a set of police officers attempting to execute a search of midnight essentially not wearing their police issued hats as they should have been in non reflective rape here the circumstances of this execution were it was a minimal area the chicago police claims that they shot of this concurrently with attempting to cry and batter open the back door with after they already broken that very didn't go through a fence before they got a lot of property that's  house may have been fortified to the police so that may have been the reason why there and sure to the back of the property now after the gun shot the officers instructed the individuals to come out which they did almost immediately being instructed after the single shot was fired with those facts in mind justified use of force defenses whether of self others or dwelling with the crucial issues in this case bitch you know didn't know the individuals in defendant charged an theory of accountability as an entitle to introduce evidence is all subjective belief in the need for self defense as opposed to the principle when actors believe there isn't any right will i would regard charging he was not charged under the accountability theory he was tried under an accountability theory and in illinois there is no difference for guilt and innocence purposes between an accountable party and a principle is as it antonio's record then we didn't know based on trial testimony we didn't know who was at the back door and said we thought somebody was breaking in and so he advances his force and denial and isn't there a guaranteed ineffective assistance of counsel argument on appeal and defense counsel and finances they actually polls and humans in the trial if this is mutually exclusive theories but to raise both theories in the trial court that could have been the strategy it would have been reasonable and there's case law on that but turning to he was denied the opportunity to raise one of those defenses  our law allows that and if you take a look at the substantive criminal treatise on this issue in other jurisdictions is entirely allowable that you can raise justified use of force for an accountable party the liability of each is measured by his or her own degree of culpability the compas may very well have an affirmative defense they can this case justified use of force based on his or her own beliefs irregardless of what the principal shares those same beliefs springer the commonwealth of kentucky only support in kentucky supreme court case allow it and found it in a tear real for self defense purposes rather the lot the trial court and both trial counsel for that matter be forgiven for not taking the position that this is well established with it simply isn't in illinois  it is by the statute there is no prohibition in the statute to raise justified use of force in accountability case it does same with the accountability statute there's no prohibition that says justified use of course is a non available defense in this case and again i come was the theory of defense in this case because he put his motion for a new trial it was not sufficient evidence in this record from wesley kitchens grand jury testimony or trial testimony in paris takes his trial testimony to warrant justified use of force antonio had to testify in order to raise a justified use of force defense which is that's not correct according to illinois supreme court law from a defense can be raised only in the state's evidence and the state's evidence doesn't raise that it can be other evidence in the defense case now turning back to trial counsel's ineffectiveness enough evidence on this record and i was operating under the assumption that you did followed me pretrial the raising justified use of force defenses and whether it's judge sachs actually having done that which seem he seems to have done at the presenting any evidence regarding self defense that was his quote at the hearing battery even if you didn't know it was peace officers outside and it is so long ago compounded this year by repeatedly this is advising the jury about justified use of force on the same topic to which there was no catch correct operating under of evidence necessary to justify  kitchen and something to show hidden so it's central so  but it really wasn't an accurate statement of the la times argue to the jury yeah i defendant is not entitled to shoot first ask questions later when somebody breaking to your house you just briefly yahshua just some of the points raised by the state in their argument with the state's concession i just made use of force there was slight evidence and some evidence of justified use of force in this case all we have to do is look to the supreme court in jones and everett and believe it was in in jones that in that case the reasonable weave the victim was seventeen years or under or seventeen years or older was race solely on the state circumstantial evidence now turning to the state it's comments about the two thousand and ten shooting counsel tried to might whether antonio might have been shot some time before is not relevant to this case at all antonio what else antonio good testified to other than this prior shooting at that point