university we've tried to go to one university in the spring and we go to the university of illinois law school in the fall and hold oral arguments and real cases so this is not a move or competition this morning these are real cases with real lawyers and real litigants i want to thank the attorneys who agreed to come out here today and have their oral arguments heard a u i yes it is a little inconvenient for them  appreciate it we think it's a really good learning experience for the students i'm carol told i have to be the presiding justice in the fourth district appellate court this year to my left is the justice thomas appleton and to my right is justice john turner who will be hearing the oral arguments with me in this case today i heard that the clerk explaining a lot of the details about what's going on and they will save me from having to do it and so i think we're ready to begin so i will call the first case it's  thirteen dash zero three to five people the state of illinois versus jeremy cooper attorney wilson is here i'm here for the appellant and attorney feels here on behalf of the state the effort all right mr wilson are you may please the court counsel council to mourn your honour's my name is ryan wilson and i represent german cooper on behalf of the office of the state a public defender mr cooper chose to represent himself in this case he was entitled to a fair trial and fro unbiased judge but that isn't what he received instead the court in conduct that it even described is highly unusual and interrupted germany's examination of witnesses approximately thirty seven times many of those times were suicide on tape jackson's that there was no indication the state even wanted to make the court also refused to allow jeremy to question several defense witnesses during a series of critical offers of proof instead the court which was largely uninformed about the defense witnesses involvement in the case question the witnesses instructed germy not to interrupt it and on the one occasion when he did to clarify some testimony the court told him if he interrupted again he would be placed in jail and he would not have the opportunity to cross examine the state's witnesses during the entire trial the court's conduct was not only highly in iraq for there in limited circumstances i would say it does in this case though where there was a whole wholesale failure to allow him to question any witnesses during the offer of proof i would say the court overstepped its bounds here that this isn't a case where up until that point jeremy had been abusive to witnesses or been disrespectful to the court he had gone so far as in one case to even find or try to understand the hearsay dr and and when he believed that one of his witnesses might not have heard testimony or a report might be excluded on hearsay grounds he found an exception to the hearsay rule germany was as prepared as an attorney probably would have been to represent him in this case the fact that he's representing himself pro se doesn't give him any different rights or any fewer rights than counsel would have had and in this case had coun that attorney would have been able to examine those witnesses during the offer of proof especially in a case like this where the evidence reflects that jeremy had reviewed the reports that these witnesses had written he knew their involvement in the alleged assault and he understood the prison policies and procedures that applied after an assault like this there's no evidence of the record that the judge understood these things she may have had a very basic knowledge of it based on the testimony that was proffered prior to those witnesses being called for the offer proof but there was no indication that she had the in depth knowledge that was necessary in order to properly question those witnesses so the court could fully understand what their testimony was going to be prior to the court asking that these witnesses come in to testify it again instruct germy that he wasn't asking the questions not to interrupt the court and what's important about that is the court also said in a majority of cases i believe three out of the four offered in three of the four offers of proof the court  germy i'll give you an opportunity to ask questions when i'm ready out of the four witnesses that the court questioned the court allowed him to allow jeremy to ask one question of the court which had to be conveyed to the judge and in the judge could convey it to the witness so fur most purposes he was completely excluded from question these witnesses in demonstrating that the testimony that they could offer the testimony that he was aware of could help his case and instead the judge was the one that made that decision a judge who didn't understand the and she had given a narrative statement to another officer apparently at the at the cross and she had signed that statement and that statement was in some ways inconsistent with the testimony that she offered at trial and jeremy wanted to examine her based on that statement to show the inconsistency that were present between her trial testimony and the statement that she had signed as jeremy was getting ready to try and examine her with that report though the court said that's hearsay it's not coming in jeremy said i've got an exception here can't can we please hear this i want to show you that there's an exception to hearsay rule the court said no jeremy said would you please excuse the jury so we can have a hearing on this so i can explain you why are testimony is relevant and why there's a hearsay exception and the judge has no i'm not going to excuse the jury germy said i still want to ask my question in the judge said ok take the jury out take him out to the judge said that in the jury's presence her frustration was on display for the jury now the judge ultimately allowed jeremy to stay in the courtroom during that recess but she ordered that he be handcuffed there had been any indication up to that point that he was acting aggressively or that he was a danger to anyone or to escape risk the handcuffing seems very punitive in this case because she was upset with jeremy they remained for the rest of them they did not the for the jury came back in the judge had the handcuffs removed so that while the jury was present that's that's correct but still the judge's frustration was it was still on display in front of the jury it just wasn't the offer proof were the judge was visibly frustrated with them and i should add that throughout this trial again by my count the judge me the judge interrupted germy question of witnesses thirty seven times now as a set forth in the brief in it's not entirely clear but many of those interruptions during many of those interruptions the judge made several objections to the testimony the judge would say objection that speculative and hearsay are that's in answer but as you go through trial and i believe the law's fairly clear on this that juries are quick to pick up on the leanings of a court and if a court seems frustrated if a court doesn't believe that a defendant's case has merit those are things the jury picks up on and so as we're going through trial or as they were going through trial and as the judge was making all these objections sometimes objections that went on for pages it would have been hard for the jury not to pick up on the court's frustration with jeremy it's very similar to the lorenz case that cited in the briefs where a defendant was represented by counsel and during his case he would make objections and  i guess you would call them speaking objections and the court would say counsel stop making speeches and there are approximately sixteen of those and the court found that the judge's phrase ology the fact that the judge was calling friends counsel's objections speeches indicated to the jury that the point that defense counsel is were trying was trying to make the objections that he was making the points of law he was trying to to make were important and that they could be disregarded the state it's pretty tries to distinguish lawrence and says this is entirely different case here but i don't believe it is it's a case where regardless of what the the the actual words the judge used the word the judge didn't call any of germy statements speeches but what the judge did throughout the trial was certainly give the jury the idea that what germany was talking about these this testimony that he was trying to elaborate on the questions that he was posing to the witnesses was irrelevant in fact the court would would say that during one exchange jeremy asked officer punky some questions regarding the uniform that was present there in court germany's defense was that he was essentially being framed that he was assaulted by prison guards at the prison and therefore they had to make up some reason to come into a cell and remove him from the cell thereby causing the battery that he alleged and his argument was that they made up this allegation that he had thrown a substance on officer punky the uniform present at trial didn't appear to be damaged didn't appear to be stained anything of that nature germy also knew that officer punky in his written report didn't say anything about submitting his uniform to officers at the prison to begin investigation jeremy decide you want to make a point either punky his report was poorly written because he didn't acknowledge that he had turned evidence over to the prison or the uniform present in the courtroom actually wasn't his because it was reflected in his report jeremy started asking questions and the court asked him to explain the relevance of his  questioning jeremy said i'm trying to prove it's not his uniform that uniform is not damaged he's framing me in his report he never says he put no uniform in your bag or nothing the court responded the question stricken the jury should disregard everything the defendant just said because it's all argument and it's not before the court now had the judge ended there there weren't necessarily be anything wrong with with that statement the judge is asking the jury to disregard what your me just has just said in the point that he's trying to make but the court added and there's no evidence to that effect in saying that the judge told the jury there's no evidence the punky didn't mention failing to submit his uniform in his written report there's no evidence that that's not his uniform there's no evidence and even the defendant just said is true and that's something that the courts are not allowed to do but as the courts and people versus tyner rarely if ever is a judge called upon to comment on the evidence during trial except where necessary in ruling on an disability under no circumstance should he express an opinion as to the veracity of evidence such an intimation may carry great weight that may prove controlling and that's certainly what seems to have happened here the court routinely in this case at its in its purest form it involves jeremy not being a little more definitive on how it is a structure sure at this level jeremy is alleging that one he wasn't allowed to fully represent himself pro se which is a right that he has that's a right that the courts have recognized in the courts have said that when a defendant is denied an opportunity to represent himself pro se that amounts to a structural air additionally there are several instances throughout her many of which i've already talked about where the court is exhibiting bias and a bias judge or a bias court is another example of where the courts a found that there are structural there and so the the air in this case isn't subject to the harmlessness rules in fact it would be very difficult to prove it was subject to the harm that it wasn't harmless if structural there wasn't present it's it's one of these arguments as though none of this is really germany's fault the court stepped in and the court directed what questions he could ask of what questions he couldn't ask the court directed what witnesses could testify during the offers of proof and what witnesses could not testify during the offers of proof the fact that those witnesses were excluded means that we don't have a lot of the information the records showing what those witnesses would have testified about and what they would have said and so it's naturally difficult to show that the error was harmless in this case because the court excluded the very evidence that could show that there was prejudicial so we rely on the structural argument and the exception to the harmlessness test the structural or allows us the state has argued in its brief that these issues were preserved and therefore they've been procedurally defaulted because they were raised in a poster on the ocean throughout trial jeremy had been clear that he was dismayed by the court's conduct and i say dismayed i think it's an accurate work several times throughout trial he would ask the court can your honor can i ask what we're doing and the court said no you can't know could you please explain why we're doing this no and he would say that you know what i don't understand the process that we're using your why why are we doing this and one point he said i guess i'll just have to appeal that that's going to be what happens here and that's exactly why we're here today but the the state has alleged that these issues have been have been waived a problem with that argument is we're talking about the courts conduct here and there's an exception the waiver argument where the issue of the legal issue that is being debated surrounds or involves the court's rulings the courts comments at trial in this case once the jury was left the courtroom for deliberations the judge informed the parties that it wanted to go on the and explain some of mr cooper's concerns that he had voiced that he was receiving a fair trial and the court said essentially that it had no second thoughts about the way it conducted trial it believed that it needed to save the state from looking bad in the jurors and therefore it rather than the state had to make the the objections that it made the effect that was the opposite of that when jurors walk into a courtroom they understand that there's going to be an adversarial process they understand that the state's going to advocate for one position and the defense is going to advocate for another what happened in this case though is that germany faced both the state and the court and with the amount of deference that juries offer to statements that the court makes and leanings of the court the courts involved in this case was highly prejudicial and based on the statements that the court made when the jury left to deliberate there's no indication this record that the court would have changed  mind had jeremy filed a poster on the ocean alleging that the court acted improperly here in fact based on the court's statements it seems that had he filed one the court may have even become more upset with him thinking that he was trying to frustrate the trop process further delay delay the case the state also argues that if what happened in this case is air if the judges repeated interjections in the trial were air and the objections that the court post the defendant could ask many irrelevant questions during trial requiring the court to step in and and then when the court stepped in on appeal he would be able to argue that he was denied a fair trial because the court interject itself into the proceedings i believe i call it the parade of horribles in the reply brief and there's simply no merit to that argument and this is why in in a case such as this the judge had many options the judge was concerned about germy representing himself per se from the moment that germy expressed a desire to do that the court said that she didn't think it was a good idea for him to do it and during trial and said i told you prior to trial this was or if it's completely the completely wrong decision for the defendant if the judge can't keep stepping in and doing the state's job for it and here that's what the court did the court had other options if the court was truly concerned about jeremy and his ability to represent himself  trial the court could have appointed standby counsel for jeremy in that case and in the cases involving standby counsel allison being one the court says that stand by counsel can be appointed as long as the defendant still gets to direct his trial so his rights could have been preserved by standby counsel who could have properly advised him on what questions to ask and how to ask those questions the court also could have taken lesser taken recesses where it would direct jeremy or instruct him give him some guidance on what questions the court found acceptable and what questions the court didn't find acceptable at its purest form the court just could have let the state pose don't objections and the court could have ruled on those that is the way the trial process is supposed to work had that happened we wouldn't be here today because it would at least as to the court's objections we wouldn't be here today we might still be here for the offer proof issue but that's the way the trial process is supposed to work and that's not the way it worked in this case as i said the court on thirty seven occasions at least interrupted jeremy's question of witnesses and i said that in the brief i just like to read a portion of some of the exchange between jeremy in the court if i may says that is a question ask another question mr cooper so you're saying you're stephanie what did she do he can't testify to what your staff needed what was he treated for another question by mr cooper that's already been asked and answered the state asked him i didn't ask him you don't dr tilden that's a relevant ask another question then he goes on to get some guidance from the court regarding how that's not relevant nowhere in that near it's merely a page of my brief did the did the state interposed an objection that was the court on multiple occasions posing objections in the jury's presence telling jeremy that the questions he was asking were speculative and weren't relevant and i should note the state during its examination punky was able to ask him about the medical treatment that he had he had received and this is just an example of how things didn't work both ways it is trial the state was allowed to ask punky about the medical treatment he received jeremy then is relevant and i should note later the when jeremy asked how are you treated by doctor told in the course of that's asked and answered dr tilton's name had been mentioned during witness examination up until that point it hadn't so that was a valid question as well and that may very well have been the reason that the state didn't make an objection to that question because the state knew that no one had discussed dr told mistreatment of officer punky or electromotive officer punky up until that point this is just an example of the pervasiveness of the court questioning and the way that the court overstepped its duty as a neutral party during mr cooper's trial so i see my time's expired we would ask that german cooper's conviction be reversed his case be remanded for a new counsel it's important to remember that this is these are two different arguments two separate arguments the first argument is posited as a denial of the defendant's right of self reference self representation specifically in the motion in limi hearing or the offer of proof hearing there of course it's well settled that the trial court has vast discretion and how to conduct its motion women a hearing it already heard the proffer from the state that they had t to all ten of these subpoenaed witnesses defendants subpoenaed witnesses and that all ten of them had nothing to offer in support of defendants theory of being framed or sorry i'm a little bit under the weather so i will be coughing sorry about that but anyway about the offer of proof different the alton witnesses had nothing offered the state proffered that to the trial owen as i cited in my brief along with saying that the trial court has vast discretion in conducting its motion eliminate hearing it also explains that it doesn't require wife testimony it doesn't require witnesses at all and they have a vast discretion not only in how they conduct the hearing but also in what evidence here requirements are required in those hearings says that offer proof can consist either of live testimony or of counsel's representations is long as the counsel's representations are sufficiently credible and reliable in other words the trial court could have just taken the state's offer of proof right the need to even humor defend it by bringing any of these witnesses in unless it for some reason thought the state was lying in saying that these different these defense subpoena defense witnesses had nothing to offer for defendants  case and of course there was no indication or any reason for the state to be lying about that at any rate it could have ended there they could have granted the motion in limine a right there because of course these ten subpoenaed witnesses had nothing to offer for defendant support they were all completely either irrelevant or harmed defendants case they either corroborated the victim and the accompanying nurse's testimony or they had nothing to offer  irrelevant testimony either way the motion in limine a was properly granted but that's not weird definit seems to bring that into the into the fray and his argument that's not really the issue the issue is defendant's right to self represent himself to represent himself and with that in mind he had no right to question these witnesses the state didn't get to question them either at do at the motion in limine a hearing asked all the question is asked all the questions itself so at that point that's not a denial of his right to self representation that was the trial court exercising it vast discretion in conducting its motion in limine a hearing of course you have to big keep in mind the presumably the trial court knew how i had a pretty good idea how this trial was going to go the cross examination of the victim had already started before launch this was during the lunch break the motion limon a hearing the cross examination it already started defendant of course asking either questions that are way beyond the scope of direct examination or asking  irrelevant or asking and answered questions repeating questions and so on the crime cross examination was taking unnecessarily long the trial court presumably knew that this trial was going to last a lot longer than it should be these people had already been sitting in the hallway for these ten witnesses that already been sitting in the hallway for the half day already counsel your witnesses who went to see if i didn't see a cop one of the one of the guards why wouldn't that be important one of the guards the they didn't see i guess a couple one of the guards couldn't really recollect again neither could the other two but they had both the ones that couldn't see a cup or carton or whatever both testified that they saw the substance and smelled the substance all over the all over the cell in the area in front of the cell again this defendant didn't defend it wasn't offering these witnesses for that purpose defendant was offering these witnesses as some sort of conspiracy where he the reason he got beat up they're trying to create this  framing again these these witnesses say well we we saw the we saw the substance we smelled the substance that how can that that was irrelevant to defend his point about being framed and again flash point blank what are these are these witnesses going to support your theory of defense what are they going what specifically how are they going to support it and defend it said well i hope they testify have but he chose to represent himself this is not a dept this was not a deposition of been under an obligation to be interviewed and skills well if they had saw something that happened that was wrong of course they would been under an obligation a duty to report anything they saw that would that happen wrongfully in this alter cation again this wasn't a deposition this was a trial this was not it this and as the trial court noted this our state noted this was nothing but a fishing expedition at the point that definit was offering these witnesses again just because a defendant comes up with this theory and subpoenas these ten witnesses that this doesn't automatically mean that they have a they have to stay under subpoena again the trial court could have just used the the state's proffer these witnesses have nothing to offer defendant granted the subpoena or granted the motion eliminate then it didn't listen to a couple of witnesses that's when the testimony came out about this did you see a milk carton or an orange juice car whatever course we know after trial that those two cartons look identical i guess or just a different color but that's beyond that's that we're looking at the the trees instead of the forest here about the mold objections or made it f that's the theory that's the second that's the second argument and that's not a right to self representation argument therefore we can't go we can't follow the structural error red herring with that as as far as forfeiture goes again of course both of these are for forfeited there was nothing in the post or a motion of the defendant even by the post rome ocean again as well settled that he doesn't get special special breaks because he represented himself as far there were numerous interjections by the trial court again the i think he said thirty seven i don't i anderson both cited in my brief if we use a harmless error analysis of course there was overwhelming evidence here this was an open and shut case the victim and the accompanying nurse both testified that defendant indeed threw the substance on the guard and the trick jury also by the defendant claims that there was not damage to the uniform the jury saw the uniform so that the trial judge's job to make sure the state  it was it wasn't not its job to make sure the state looked bad but it's also the court explained why it did what it did well that was one of their justification so the state doesn't look like a bully because again this the the proper courtroom procedure of defendant was obviously not up to snuff he kept asking improper questions and in a proper forms but the trial court i think the primary objective here is to control its own courtroom it seemed to me that some of the proved that was about the nurse which the defendant had been asking questions about that nurse already in his cross examination if i recall and the doctor tilden the doctor where the defendant explained that nothing had been asked about dr tilden yet she said asked and answered again it wasn't because that doctor really the doctor didn't treat the officer it was a different doctor i do think the trial court was confused in that exchange because it was a different doctor that the cooper said he was trying to report or not again this is reading this in context it's about him turning it's about him turning his uniform in to this guy he's trying to say because the evidence the contraband officer or whatever they call him he accidentally threw defend his name tag away so this is what defendant pounced on this is what defendant clung to that well they're framing me they are switching you know how to send in the report they don't even mention that he turned his uniform in  evidence it's not even mention his theory was but that he was being framed the officer that did take that took the uniform did testify right but what i'm getting at is doesn't the defendant have a chance to ask those questions by defendant i'm i'm again this is it was asked by the state in direct that are you all right that this is a different one you're talking about and your reporter did it your disciplinary reports your anderson your your answer to reports you state you turned in your uniform for evidence i'm sorry sir that's but that's been gone over no we didn't asked and answered the evidence is sitting right here move on to something else i'm asking did he write it in his report it doesn't matter if it's in his report he didn't write it in his report but it's right here that's what i'm asking him did he write it in his report so then the court the trial court asked what's the relevance of that what's the relevance of that question i'm trying to prove that that's not his uniform the uniform is not damaged he's framing me again officer officer punk never testified to anything anything that that and that this wasn't his uniform he testified specifically it was his uniform so so does the defendant and solver presented that again just have to accept everything the officer testified to and of course to ask about it of course not of course not again i think that the the overall number of energy actions here is high and maybe the trial court was frustrated with defendants representing representing himself however the the way the interjections the way they were phrased were neutral by the trial court they did that right after that when they say it's all argument it's not before the court there's no evidence to that effect that's because defendants trying to trying to twist that officer's words into saying that he was framing him or something like that in that you just can't that clearly was argument by defendant so that it's important to clarify to the jury that this to this of this officer not testifying to that that line of facts but more importantly as anderson also stated besides the forfeiture besides harmless air the enderson court the trial court and that instructed the jury neither by these instructions nor by any ruling a remark which i have made do i mean to indicate any opinion as to the facts or as to what your verdict should be i quote that because the exact same instruction was used in this case i don't think so when we check might have shown an opinion or something might have indicated an opinion to the jury a jury is presumed to follow the instructor instructions there's no record in this case there's no indication in this case that they didn't hear that that should cure any any opinion that came through in the energy actions and also from a policy perspective as i mentioned in my brief three things are there's basically three possibilities all of them benefit defendant none of them hurt defendant in the future if we take a defendant's theory as as a holding here  defense or defend defense counsel or defendant ask multiple questions multiple improper questions three things can happen the state looks like a bully for objecting so many times after i guess it would be thirty seven possible objections at this in this trial although i think many times the defendant was asking questions beyond the scope that was beyond the scope of direct examination that would let let go the state looks like a bully for objecting so many energex like they did in this case that there's a clear avenue on appeal for bias or hostility or whatever argument that that can be or three the state in the trial court did nothing allow the jury to be influenced by this in planning of theory of framing or whatever it would be these questions where there's nothing there is was beyond the scope of cross examination or beyond any relevance of the evidence of the witnesses had so all three and there would be no downside to doing that so there's really be an encouragement for a defense counsel to ask as many and the more improper questions the better and not just of not just pro se defendants but even defense counsel  of course that that can't stand and is against obviously proper courtroom procedure so clearly the main thing here is that both of these arguments are forfeited there was no post trial however the factual scenario and kleiner was that the jury asked questions to the trial court trial court answered them or disposed of them without telling defense counsel course defense counsel has an opportunity to object he didn't even know about the the questions here obviously the state or the defendant was on the other end of all these interjections and he was on the other end of this motion eliminate hearing clearly he had every opportunity  every reason to file a post trial motion and to bring these up and in that case we would have a clear record of why the trial court performed the way they did however they didn't so clearly these  forfeited issues and of course the evidence against defend it was overwhelming so plain error analysis shouldn't apply either the see began its argument by noting people versus owen regarding the case that said that the court can control the way an offer of proof is handled and that is correct but in this case one the court didn't have to take the state's word on what the witnesses would testify about the in fact this there's no evidence that the state knew why the defendant one of those witnesses to testify and just justice turner as you pointed out none of the three first responders to what was  crime scene mr cooper cell reported in their written report seeing the milk carton seeing the the most tangible piece of evidence that would have helped the state's case they did report seem that two of the three testified that they did smell something and see a liquid substance outside the cell but nobody thought to ask them is that unusual i mean this is a prison after all is this unusual that you would smell these things or see these things outside of of a cell if those things existed you would have thought that they would have put them in their written was helpful to his case after the offer proof concluded was prejudicial to his case the court stepped in the court had told him during examination one of the witnesses this isn't your time to argue you'll have a change start you the court examines the three witnesses germy tries to argue why their testimonies unmissable and the judge says this isn't your time to argue this is my ruling this is not a judge who is giving a defendant represented or not the rights that he is entitle to and as this is structural or in the briefs we have cases that we've cited to you for both of these examples the state is right the issues in this case were raised as two separate issues the offer of proof issue in the frequent interjections by the trial court but in the brief precedent for both of those factors being structural there and in this case again it satisfied at least the second prong of the plane air analysis where there's been a fundamental right that the defendant wasn't afforded regardless of the closeness of the evidence again i'd very much like to stand up here and tell you that the evidence was closely balanced in this case but i can't do that because the court's conduct in excluding the evidence that germany wanted admitted which would have shown that the evidence was was closely balanced here it is plain there under the a structural error and it is a situation where the failure of germany to include these in a post from motion needs to be forgiven because this after all was the judge's conduct and there is evidence in the record based on the comments of the court made after the jury left deliberate that indicate the judge wasn't going to change its mind the judge had no regrets about the the statements i made to the jury the comments that i made the objections that it made a post from motion would not have done anything to change the court's mind here and that's the primary reason for filing the post trauma ocean the state interject or the state offers three different examples of what could have happened in this case had the court not done what it did it would force the state to object which makes the state look like a bully the court interjects like it did here or the parties do nothing you only have those three avenues one the state necessarily wouldn't look like a boy because hopefully it just would have objected to objectionable questions many of the objections that the court made were to testimony that wasn't objectionable to begin with and again this is how our adversary process works sometimes it is messy for people to get a fair trial but this does the state the defense have their defined roles those roles weren't followed in this case so in conclusion juries it goes back to the point that you may just as turn a regarding the jury instruction that especially in an area like this where the courts  that juries are quick to seize upon the leanings of a judge my guess my question would be what instruction does the judge want the jury to follow does it want the jury to follow the instruction that it gives at the time that sustains the objection or at the time it explains why an objection was sustained when it tells jeremy to move on or doesn't want the jury to listen to the jury instruction that's given saying pay no attention to what i've said before it's got to be one of the other it can't be both they're mutually exclusive so at the very least it would have confused the jury at the very most by the time the objection or by the time instruction is given it was too late to already correct the damage that had been done by the trial court's leanings so we would ask that jeremy cooper's case