counselor that you know that just disconnect is the third member of this animal is unable to be here today however he will listen to the arguments as you know they are recorded and we will conference with you know you saw these cases that he won't be joining  please the court counsel by name and zachary rosen from the fourth district office of the state a public defender and i represent mr eric read mr reid's case raises a question of science science and scientists like to uncover the truth and that's good for mr reid because for nearly thirty years now he's argued his innocence that's why he filed a motion under one sixteen that three and that's why he asks that his all d n a tests be redone using current standards under s t r dash p c r testing and he requests that this court grant that because this new testing does have a likelihood of a more productive results and because after the test is conducted  it has the potential to produce new and don cumulative evidence related to his innocence claim and i'd like to focus the court's attention to the specific tests and items to be tested and like to focus on two of them primarily because i think these two areas best meet the requirements of one sixteenth at three and that's one and s t r p c r test on factual swabs and blood samples and a mitochondrial test on collected hairs these two tests were best meet the standards of one sixteen three they will produce productive results because they are the new school of d n a testing and it will produce new non cumulative evidence that can refute can exonerate the match the random match probability of one in seventeen million that was made part of this case under the r f l p testing your hono a testing has been a part of illinois criminal cases for decades now but in the one nine hundred ninety s it was rather new technology and the technology then was r f l p d n a testing at the time of mr reed's case experts were allowed to declare a match share with the court with the jury a random match probability that just for low side a low side is just a location where items are tested they're looking at all meals each lowside is discriminatory and has a certain ratio at which a match would occur then those ratios are multiplied and that's how we get the overall random match probability in this case of one in seventeen million throughout the ninety's the illinois state police department switched from adeptly that each low side b r f l p is more discriminatory but over all the s t r p c r test is more discriminatory because it has the potential of producing more exacting ratio and those numbers are important and ninety ninety ninety one was a trial mr reeve was convicted in part because the d n a evidence showed that it was him with a probability of one in seventeen million that  that statistic is what would yield a random match and so that evidence was used in part to convict him but over those years the testing standards have changed as t r p c yield results in these sextillion or septillion numbers of these numbers are huge and those probabilities of someone else matching when the numbers are that big are very very small well no your honor i don't think it is and i don't think the bass to that test at four locations would be accepted in court today other courts in illinois have talked about how this the of all are if lp testing is outdated and unreliable dr reich calls it back to judge letter in this case call that old testing at four locations rather primitive let's talk about the facts of testimony regarding the differences between these two types of d n a testing you agree that there are two different types of testing yes roger and didn't experts testify that the new method is not necessarily more reliable prompt more probative that there is nothing wrong with the old testing in those results are reliable yes and he is testifying as a scientist and so what are you talking about or the scientific principles of running that test and that's where he gets into discussions about how each low side is more discriminatory under r f l p testing but i guess my question is when it comes down to it to something that you have expert testimony that the trial court or that this test is somehow more admitted the court said i had a different well because the court read it and the court relied on it when it ruled so that evidentiary hearing has spanned over three years so the information that is this letter comes in before the court reaches its determination there are sure in this where mr reed is asking for funding to have dr wright testify those requests are denied and so all he has is this letter what i read the letter and dr wright disagreed with what the state said but still denied the motion now even if this court refuses to consider the latter which i argue is a part of the record i think it can still grant this counsel is it appropriate to consider something that was not it didn't have it well i think that under fundamental fairness the court below considered it even if it said it's not part of the record examples that have talked about these old matches under a best than thirteen lowside as unreliable the state's own expert said that a full battery of as t combined d n a indexing system and again those lowside dislocations that are tested the four probes are locations that were done in this case and are f l t none of them are duplicated under s t r p c r and under modern standards that case talked about s t r p c r results and said how it nine ten and i'm betting a lowside those i would you can get ratios within the trillions you can still have two random people maps that are alive today on earth even though there is far less than one trillion people on earth so just because the number is big doesn't mean that there is a conclusion and that's where science is different than the words we use in court to try to convict so the testing has changed dramatically over the years in one thousand nine hundred ninety one for most signs of the old test was enough but that changed five lowside that changed to six lowside and i cited two expert testimony that explain that how a an exclusion on a subsequent locus would mean exoneration would mean that the d n a does not match the defect then the only state police which the s t r p c r in the millenni and they don't run f r o l p testing anymore this testing rarely if ever comes into court in modern times because the full thirteen lowside battery is so much more discriminatory when it is all done  expert is less discriminating or have p t s d for the limited instance that it can identify the entire male population yes and that's why i wanted to focus the court's attention on s t r p c r testing because overall it is more discriminatory and mitochondrial testing and both meet the requirements here but even s t r p c r went through that same progression that are a felt he went through when that technology was first introduced in the mid ninety's and probably accepted in the two thousand and nine low side with enough but slowly over time we now require thirteen lowside because those numbers will reach the one in one trillion or even higher than that and so because of bad progression it the new testing is has a reasonable likelihood of more prototypical results because it's possible that mr reed is excluded on one of those additional most i remember none of the probes will be duplicated because there are separate locations between the two tests and because that new testing has the possibility for a new dawn cumulative evidence that the state has already conceded on the other two points under one sixteen three that must be proved that identity was at issue and that a chain of custody was that that's why jump from section a down to section c talking about those requirements so your honor the progress of science is normal and we rely on science and courts to help us reach the truth and why one in seventeen million seems like a very exacting standard compared to a ratio in the trillions or higher than that this court has recently seen septillion one million is really bad odds in terms of conclusively convicting someone saying that person is the one who's guilty and i think that the court case the savory case says you have to look at the other evidence because in this case we have the d n a testing which at the time i think is the most damning piece of evidence is the court as a state points out that we have an identification that wasn't made initially at the miami it was made in court we have issue print that matches just the make and model the expert cannot say that was mr reed shoe but that he owned that same make and model shoe a very popular model and we have a palm print and that is on the outside of the car which i think is important now the reason i go through all of you evidence is because overall if you start to look at the d n a evidence and dish trust the old result as reliable testimony to suggest that we should not rely on national tests that took place or even testimony to suggest that one test is more reliable so i don't understand what judge leonard in this denied as well so in a sense his hands are tied so the only way i can argue that the science is different and that it has significantly progressed that the new testing will show more provocative will show new non cumulative evidence is by pointing to other examples and that's why i cited to the people banks and people be found in cases which i think explicitly show why mr ried could be exonerated under further testing they highly english case where raymond easton was mash at one in thirty seven million and he was match it six lowside that he said he had an alibi and they continued testing i remember he was mad one hundred thirty seven million and that's a very large number of you think that was a dead on match he was tested at more low side he was there was a mismatch at a further website and the charges were dropped and i'm arguing that's what would happen in this case because although the testing was done new testing exists was a problem you could not run d n a testing on hair back then in the ninety's without a root but now with the advance of d n a testing mitochondrial d n a testing you can test that hair and again that test has the possibility of eliminating mr reed as a suspect and so that falls under a one because the hair was never subjected to testing that's now requested again identity and chain is established for the hair the hair is in the possession of the state well you know there are these two one sixteen three motions the first one talks about mitochondrial but the second one does not but it's clear that the second one did consider mitochondrial testing of the hair because the state argued that the hair shouldn't be tested in relation to that motion and the court overruled those objections this court can check that in the supplemental volume number nine record site seven through nineteen it's reference to get on page sixty four of that record and so when the court overruled that objection to the court mentioned it so my client raised it well the court mentioned did the state argued about it objections were raised and overruled i think it was very clearly considered and because the filing and just as the army asked you from the state's expert from other experts in other cases that i cited in my brief from the analysis and people from banks and people being found that say these mistakes can happen one seventeen million a small taters compared to trillions so your honour's the state raises should forfeiture waiver issues but they do not apply because with one of these claims the s t r p c r claim for testing factual swabs and blood that claim should stand and that claim of all of them has the highest chance of proving of providing more probative results simply because of the progression of to come or it is a hey there's a new method now i'm not saying that the old method was inaccurate or reliable but now there's a new method and i need to have testing based on human no your honor i don't think that will be a threat because this case is particularly well suited under one sixteen three because i argue that the other evidence is weak and because that one in seventeen million probability is a very high probability that someone else some other will be exonerated and so when you would people be williams that request there under one six hundred three was denied because the original test was under modern d n a standards and resulted in a random act probability of one in one point about numbers very big compared to one in seventy million i know who numbers in our minds are quite large but when you look at the statistical probabilities of another person matching it's much more likely that that happens and one of seventeen million and much much less likely that that happens in one in one trillion so that's why this case is well suited and that's why granting mr reid's request will not open the court's doors to frivolous claims to claims whatever the d n a evidence progress is even just a little bit because i see a lot of time while we measure thirteen of those signed now the f b i is already conducting twenty was a vast and her happening but defendants will not be able to abuse of fans thank you thank you and so you'll have a honor seemingly noshing these arguments should have been raised below and even if they were raised below the expert clearly stated that the r f l p test which occurred in this case was reliable was accurate and that's even comparing that to modern day standards and as justice the arment was hinting at it's important to look at issues such as race judicata the procedural issues that occur at th any more request regarding those pieces of evidence now the state also contends as set forth in our second argument that the finance motion was fatally deficient regarding the additional testing of the collected hair has just as holder i was getting at it was nowhere mention within the second more recent one sixteen daschle motion and i believe that was likely so because he was aware was previously denied and affirmed on appeal therefore race judicata so for this reason evidence presented at the one sixteen three hearing proves the opposite and regardless of the palm prints the stay fails to see how this evidence whatever materially further his claims of actual innocence as there was a match friend that national over twenty different points of comparisons the expert was extremely descriptive of the different ranges he looked at all the different methods how overwhelmingly conclusive this was i think that's pretty even testified that he has testified in trial to a mash on friends that had only six bridges or points of comparison whereas here it was twenty this is overwhelming evidence clearly and even if these two and i did a five prince were compared to defendant they didn't match it in match of the victim or her husband who are they going to compare them to that's for testified there's no way for these to be put into a i f s for and tense of database search and if there's nowhere else to compare them to i don't see how this materially for this is time for actual appeal should have been brought forth there the partial mash controversy the statistical relies dilatory i believe the expert was even question regarding some of these issues and he still nonetheless stated according to more modern standards this are a felt b test which is one in seventeen million is reliable and accurate so the state fails to see how that would produce anything except non human on the evidence now quickly the state did set forth in its brief argument five additional are arguments that defendant makes now on appeal and those are mainly the ones i've been referencing that should have been raised below and were mostly in fact not one three and every one of those cases there was no conclusive d n a evidence introduced at trial and this morning i tried to look for it base where there was conclusive d n a evidence introduced at trial and a subsequent one sixteen three additional forensic testing was granted and i could not find a case myself where that ever occurred so i think that goes to show that where there is conclusive d n a evidence introduced at trial especially in a case where there's a ma victim identification that that clearly would not materially further his actual innocence cl regards to the statistical probability and partial matches it's just statistical probabilities are still allowed in court today you know that's more of a evidentiary issue that is determined that trial it's doesn't hold much credibility either one sixteen vestry hearing where all the testimony presented below showed that the real opposite was reliable and the one in seventeen million was reliable moreover the danger of partial matches is always going to be always going to be present as set forth in our brief if there's ever the first six loci and one of them doesn't match it's always going to be not going to match so as the film was getting at the probability is one in seventeen million one in seventeen quadrillion obviously the latter is going to be more inclusive but that does not mean that the former is luciferian reliable unreliable so as a result and regards to the defendant's nike shoes the states the state does agree but by themselves they don't hold much weight but they are clearly not irrelevant in this case obviously as the evidence and dependent forensic evidence in this case continue to independently corroborate itself as justice connect recently stated this is a coalescence of coincidence which as this evidence continued to compile clearly show that the shoe print was not rendered irrelevant and continued to add to the highly probative value of this piece of evidence so in conclusion the state would request this court to affirm expert in this case did say that the testing was reliable and accurate but under today's standards he could not testify that it was a conclusive identification and so it's not overwhelming evidence that the random match probability of one in seventeen million would not come in court today because the test did not meet the minimum required matches at the number of mossad and that number has increased over the years specific suspect the state argues that suit to six are still allowed but only after the certain number of matches at the certain number of lowside are met and that's changed over the years the experts have talked about that that's in this case the experts have talked about it other cases so i don't have to rely on dr wright for that format that's why the f b i has added new lowside year after year and have finally said lowside that's the minimum you need in order to declare a conclusive match but i don't want to muddy the difference between science and language a scientists would never say it's a conclusive match that would only say it's a match and then explain the random ma probability because science and statistics say that someone else could randomly match with that d n a and i'm afraid that that's what happened to mr reid because the evidence because the testing was all because it was primitive as judge leonard  identifies the state expert in this case did acknowledge if a whole battery of tests your tests were completed the weight applied to it and s t r p c r will be more positive than r f l p and the weight applied that that scientist will be relaxed one fundamental fairness a requires and i think that this case is well suited for that type of generosity from the appellate court because the testing is so all because for nearly thirty years mr reed has claimed his innocence and because the d n a testing has progressed so significantly that no expert would say for low side under are a felt he is a conclusive match when the experts when the expert said that that information is still reliable and accurate he wasn't saying that he would declare the match today or under modern standards that's why that minimum lowside number has increased regularly throughout the nearly thirty years of d n a technological progress your honor i highlighted s t r p c r testing of the battle swabs and blood samples because i think that is the strongest claim under the statute i do argue that the other arguments are still valid and should be raised for preservation purposes but this court i think should focus on s t r p c r because it's properly raised in the motion and because the evidence even ignoring dr reichs letter is there from other experts in this