if we disagree with you and don't apply that standard where does that leave you i believe that the trial court even if you've been under a abuse of discretion what i think the trial court's ruling was incorrect on both of them because of the nature of limitations and the nature of the rulings by both the trial court general purpose of a motion eliminate his to address a specific legal issue does this particular based on other evidence year olds i'm saying that to the extent he ruled on other evidence three bases he was acted in error that the witnesses testifying before the jury in connection with all the other hours but how does the fact that his ruling on a mushroom lemonade it that can be changed at trial right yes but how the state of the prosecutor know how to get him to change that ruling when he says this and this is excluded for six different reasons and refuses to state which particular reason that he  speculation or remoteness or what so how can the state get the truck or to reconsider his pre op prior ruling without having a separate  regarding whether this evidence would ever come in and have by ruling it in advance knowing that he or she could change their minds they were giving you that warning so that something is amiss of the would inadvertently come in that you would be forewarned that you need to be prepared to address these if you want to use them i mean one might argue that's not a bad way to manage a case which is going to have a lot of complexity to it it might be looked at that way or this is why it's not speculation but if when he says it is excluded for and there were six different reasons he just a laundry list that gives the state's jury absolutely no guidance as to how to get around this pretrial rule yes it's a warning to the state attorney that when you come to trial you better be able to show a better time frame not in any way providing guidance as to which of the particular rules he starting a box and as far as his particular evidence or the rulings with respect to forfeiture by wrongdoing the trial court limited the state's attorney solely to evidence in october or november shortly before they were evidence that the not it doesn't make it look like that all of a sudden in tooth october two thousand and fourteen he decided he wants to retire at age fifty five and therefore he's not going to making more payments were worse you have the whole history of for two years so that the trial of course that this is too remote or not relevant it is incredulous that that is the trial court's rulings on any of his bases is a an abuse of discretion because that average is clearly relevant it's not overly prejudicial and the trial court's limitation were not been killed by the minute all this testimony as to the last two years of dispute would have committed but because he is he has killed her he is now limited he said the witnesses had to testify to exactly what yes imerman said he repeated that ruling probably a half dozen times during the course of the cross examination of the witness saying in first person as to what she sat you cannot paraphrase you cannot say basically she said whatever he said you have to use the exact language and then when the prosecutor said witness can you tell me using her exact language what did she say to the face of jackson leading the witness to say i mean that's the flavor of the truck or through and through are a lot of this thing that that is and as far as the limitation there is no nothing to say that if you're limited strictly to testify to testimony as to the  my translation of what you've done which is different from his best i recall which which is what the witness was testifying to is that as i recall she said big and in the course of no i want her exact words identification was just people responding repeating what the of the told which is exactly what the hearsay exception for identification is repeating that this person told me i didn't buy this particular person was prejudicial but when you have to use statements of identification at two separate times and two separate places two different people that is not r make or her making one statement at one time to one hundred different people the concern for getting all the other people in would be understandable but when you have three witnesses know the standard very well yes no reasonable person in the position of the trial court could come up with that says well i think it's a tough thing to do yes but again i submit that the you have to look point with respect to the issue of the forfeiture statements in his appeal if bennett has only identified five statements that should have been rogers i am trial court attorney skies doesn't help court lawyer today for mr kirk zimmerman i was present at all of the prior proceedings and motions that were argued we've essentially had two weeks of litigation on these motions  a three or more days on the motion to suppress identification and five or so days with respect to the forfeiture by wrongdoing leg ation i do understand and appreciate the questions  stigma with respect to the abuse of discretion issue and what a difficult burden that is to attempt to achieve i suggest to the court along with justice holder white's questions of opposing counsel with respect to the appropriate standard of review that is a very relevant part for this court's consideration and looking to both of our groups i contend and have responded and suggest today to you that it's a fairly simple analysis that there's a true dedication by the the briefing parties to represent to this court the true and accurate facts and accurate preview of the court's orders and the record seems very clear on point i think it's simple i have not at all on shy to suggest to the court that i have not necessarily ruled with the trial court's order were an identification statement was allowed and were objections on several occasions and allowed some of this very harmful testimony to be included in the trial again oh i can point out and intend on trying to point out to  you some relevant facts as it pertains to these hearings in a very concise matter i know you've reviewed the briefs extensively and don't need me to to repeat all the facts fia but with respect to the identification issue i think  respect to the identification no witnesses came forward from eleven five two thousand i'm sorry two thousand and fourteen to march two thousand and sixteen on march the fifteenth and some of the gentlemen that are in this court behind me were given an anonymous tip which led to the identification of this leg as a purported individual who can towns that when she saw my client's picture for the very first time when it was published in the pendergraph a publication in normal illinois bloomington normal july twenty second two thousand and fifteen that on or about that july day and in the few days following that she now recognizes from the newspaper that this is the same person she saw in a parking lot of the doctor's park when mr freeman was murder someone eight and a half months earlier she does nothing with that information she does not contact the police she first mentions it to her husband who's standing next to her or in the next room has the testimony was a deuce that hey this is the guy i think i saw some eight and a half months early even then i don't go to the police they instead wait several more months and then as the best of the testimony because the abuse of discretion standard is so difficult has invented another standard by a misapplication of a very plain and concise court order and by the record that they have attached as an when the court ruled on a motion for reconsideration on this issue issue why while it's quite simple they're trying to bolster the incredible testimony in real life with more legitimate witnesses like the gunther's and her husband suggesting in asking you not to be fooled by that interpretation of a different standard or review the dyno standard review by looking at what our trial court judge did in fact say say very clearly and that they've actually included not only in their brief but in the record that was before you or your review we'll of course talking about eight zero one a one b and seven twenty five i see us five slash one fifteen dash one twelve we've argued those very issues both the rule and the statutory interpretation ad nauseum before trial court judge me trying to exclude everything posing state's attorney at the trial level tried to include the g that the court rulings the standard take the take comments from the court orders out of contacts stretched and isolate particular phrases used by the trial and misinterpret the appropriate spirit of the general rule that the trial court had here two in particular with respect to the court's first order on the issue of interpretation of a no one and section one fifty even  zero the court points and says specifically in the record on pages seventeen forty seven seventeen forty eight we find it is not hearsay under both the statute and the rule so that's clear to me because i'm not trying to change the legal standard to advocate for my position when they were in the state at the trial at the trial court level filed a motion to reconsider what our trial  in this case on page eight hundred fifteen there are other factors more specifically cumulative repressive improper bolstering and unreliability so he adopts the statute the rule and he makes it clear that his ruling is based on discretion in other rules of evidence though the law that i've cited in this particular case makes those factors relevant does he have to with respect to the gunther's i guess his concern with the gun gunther's seem to me have been there are questions regarding the articulated that that listen in the context of different testimony than i heard here today i you are invited to they are vital to our view that position again and i'm certainly invited to object to both the gunther's and in my opinion under certain circumstances if i were able to identify or do a better job of making mr gunther's testimony look less credible for whatever reason through a more thorough cross examination i think it's all up for reconsideration but the reason all these motions were filed heard and started by me was to flush out this issue so we could take the volume of evidence that we're dealing with and begin to understand how representing having been there what was clear to me is on day two of the ego of the age of forty five hearing and now i'm moving on the identification into a go for b five issues  more statements more statements that were not polluted in any of the reports that were listed or most of the reports that were memorialized in the narratives of the police report so consul behind me amended that added statements on april twenty fifth  again added statements on may fourth as they continue to meet with their witnesses they had statements on may ninth at his statements again on may eleventh two thousand and seventeen a mere four days before our hearings the hearings began on may fifteenth and our trial court i believe my opinion has got a little tired of hearing i hear say irrelevant hearsay statements regarding a two thousand and twelve mediated divorce by the time he's gentlemen were grading seventeen witness and try to educe forty state so the trial court injected its opinion by questioning counsel behind me has that are we going to continue to bring people from two thousand and twelve and earlier and talk about her state of mind during a divorce or are we gonna move into more relevant admissible eight zero four p five statements state that the prosecutors continue to be on her by the bringing raising of this issue in the challenging of the court's decision here today for you and they were just as unde undeterred at that time period and we as we rolled out for three more days so justice a statement was really going on is the trial court was getting tired of witnesses that at some point were were sounding as if the were speculating on what miss ham cement was saying you know under cross examination well you didn't mention that to the police officer that was not memorialized in the report while on this other day that i don't know when she said something like this i began to object to that the trial based on speculation reliability that we all know is not necessarily a factor test here but speculation and other  constitutionally protected rules by the court was listening to my objections on all those issues and wanting to understand because such a time gap existed whether the witnesses from a credibility standpoint and from a remoteness standpoint could quantify this that the statements themselves and specifically talk about a recollection of where they recalled were they recall her saying that as you know even though reliability is not a test  the five credibility of a witness is always relevant so my appreciation which which takes issue with what was represented to you by appellants counsel who was not present is the judge had something different going on when he was asking those questions and his rulings were not mandates out all that they had to have an exact quote it's merely an attempt by the hellen to try to create a mandate that changes the abuse of discretion standard and makes it easier for him to argue what he argued just before you much of his grief and what his argument before you was was taking issue with with the discretionary rulings of the trial court looking for your honour's to mandate  to mandate when certain prongs have been met legal leave that the statute in this case it all or the five mandates the admission quite to the contrary it's just a starting point and to be quite honest my arguments mostly and my appendix i've cited the defendants exhibit i've attached defendants exhibit motion limiting number six which actually goes witness by witness and in realizes the junctions and my issues with each particular witness if our trial court felt compelled that the law will require him to take each statement one by one and make his court or r statements the civic he would have done so when asked to do so by the state's attorney's office he declined saying i'm going to decline your invitation to go statement by statement i think it was easy for him to do so because so much of the and innocently declared evidence i think trout were all dealt with the same types of witnesses they were friends of hannah who says she bad mouth my client too during that time period when they were going through a divorce through in case law citation i can see just how the trial court had to specifically make its record i think it was quite quite clear and supported by relevant case law that i have cited the court said with respect to it over forty five irrelevant speculative remote and properly opinion lack of personal knowledge humility and proper character evidence and most pacifically prejudicial impact of a statement made during a divorce and the never pleasant based in my experience as an attorney who doesn't do much domestic work but the court made specific findings that the prejudicial impact overweighs the probative value and the cases that i cited i don't need to go through you've all reviewed them brian talks about relative relevance the call talks about speculation gado talks about even if it's admissible under it'll forty five and passes the test which is what the question that you that started this colloquy as being lead oh i there is probably no doubt after seventeen witnesses at some point in time i objected to t are worse on what have been when we not in our office for the second time in preparation of this didn't you tell me she said black objection lea and it was disagreeable to a certain respect that it was disagreeable and perhaps that this business about retirement had been expressed earlier and was even a consideration potential that this could cause someone to react in the way he did he's alleged to have done well i suggest the record doesn't necessarily support that and certainly it opens up a divorce trial in the middle of a criminal trial because should those statements have been let in or if you would recommend that they be let in then what is now my mandate is to go back and explore that this wasn't as wasn't a trial there was a successful agreement amongst the parties and my experience would be to draw the other conclusion not that you know this is certainly they didn't develop or call one single witness that mr  had any negative energy toward this is him or men or he ever threatened her there were no orders of protection there were no threats of violence it was mrs zimmerman rolling around to everybody expressing her displeasure with how what his demands were during the divorce proceeding i mean that would tend to cause me to believe that i could negate most of that but i don't really think i tend to appreciate the trial speculative thoughts about what was driving him and the direction that he was being driven as to why he wanted to maintain his pension and why the divorce was amicable those things and did they they they are i assume closer to the data we do have the there after were he just taken back to court a second time for the thing statements made at the time of the original that there were post dissolution proceedings that involve knowing child support or no pain the only thing the trial court would let in was the letter that she says to the planet making demands for payme and during those conversations were there we have talked about the divorce or what's going on after the divorce and her fear of what the defendant would do because of his his money and service so i think that it