mr hall was facing charges that stemmed from allegations that he had abused and t who was ten years old his ten year old stepdaughter at the time of the allegations the evidence that he was seeking to get in was that he had information from n t s mother that n t had tested positive for comedia and kevin hall was prepared to present evidence that he in fact it tested negative kevin hall initially was tried  in a hung jury after that trial counsel sought out evidence of this testing ship paint a court order for medical records from cook county department of health and found out from them that the case had been referred to a private agency family health services in the suburbs so council went on to obtain a court order to get the medical records from from them what she found out from that was answered ready for trial she did i'm going to suggest just as you are trying to protect your time here that you talk about the issue of what was mentioned in opening and closing and the testimony of the expert witnessed numerous cases that this was an awful awful case that she'd seen it was heartbreaking to her the prosecutor signaled that this was going to be her testimony in its opening statements she when the prosecutor asked her how she felt when she saw all these injuries and if the court finally allowed the doctor to see it on that and the other it was twice sustained and then the third bite at the apple it was allowed to get it right in light of all the evidence that was entered the testimony of the minor child the testimony of mr hall's ex wife i believe it  actually make a statement implicating him in response to the mother's repeated questioning asking her did something happen to miss did kevin do something to you and it was nine days before the child actually came forward wife she changed her testimony we don't know what sort of biases she might have against mr hall when she first made the statement parrish me of same to a grand jury she said that that was influenced by one of the type this she changed her testimony a testimony and to really put that boaster its case with things that were not really relevant were not necessary for the jury to her hear in order for it to make it terminations the state's tell us though that you know the defense at trial was that we know the defense we know that the child was you know brutalized sexually in the way that the factor described so we're  mr hall right which then becomes a question of why it doesn't need to be so much emphasis on what the doctor thought and it just makes it more inflammatory for the jury what an awful thing sure yes i mean this is all evidence that the jury heard the jury heard this evidence into two different trials the jury did very might have chose not to believe the evidence  mistrial it's i just think that it's an indication of the closeness of the evidence that you did have a jury that was unable to reach a conclusion we read the record though from the first trial that was a you know much different trial it seems seems to me anyway it was t first time left more evidence of life different kinds of witnesses and a lot collateral kind of arguments about you know buying the car and who was having an affair and who was not having an affair i just don't know if that's something that we should be and i guess what you talk about when you have some time here tell us about the argument that was made about where the state suggested that whichever version of ms sheriff that they accepted that there was penetration and or the senate was guilty either way right i mean this is again a misstatement of the law that based on his statements to the shark where primarily it jury in isolation he's still guilty either way that oh what was that they said either way he's guilty and then they went on to read the instruction regarding any contact however flight  talking about these statements and how forget about everything else look at these no matter which one you believe he's guilty based on the statements i think that my recollection is that they said that you know even if you you believe we should follow people versus blue that this is the conduct of the prosecutor here are you saying that it's the type of misconduct in the eyes of the defense that warrants a new trial and if so why  would say that if you look at the number of the arguments and the inflammatory nature of them and people people who they were very concerned with aligning the jury with the victim in which is what happened here can si to the jury this child yes it was a terrible crime and this child the only way she can go on or something you know she's not alone anymore she has she doing really aligning the jury with the victim and also really hitting home with really encouraging the jury to align with his child victim the most sympathetic victim or are you suggesting that the those sort of care picks that you condemn in your brief were the product of the case having been mistreated the first time around i don't know for sure i can't say why those became those by the prosecutor made those arguments it's possible that they had to go at it they've maybe they felt they had to go at it a little bit harder based on the first mistrial and so i would say you know the cumulative nature and then all these improper arguments and just to go back to the first issue which is you know but to have him not have an opportunity to bring forth that evidence that was also relevant to this case and not be allowed to even pursue this evidence about the positive test against compared to his negative test which of all the other excuse me when was the defendant tested and and that negative result discovered i don't think it's clear from the record although i do think it was shortly after doctoring column right right i believe that what the doctor said that test was inconclusive and that you couldn't get she could get a committee is something that can be taking care with antibiotics over a relatively short course of treatment right so the timing would be important it would be important i assume that his test he would have to test negative or positive before he gets treatment and so if they could prove their end if the defense able to bring in his negative testing early on yes i think i mean this is all this is all information that should be able to come out and  you can't prove a negative unless you can a sample should timeline right for both parties right ok right or maybe you should ask for a continuance after he answered ready for trial well that's true but really i mean i don't  any cases where the court denies a continuance just because the defendant integrated for trial and in fact i think you say that they were there were a couple other dates given in order to you know try to find this supposed the evidence from some clinic uptown court orders and these are called medical records that are in the control of the state or the state's witness that you can't just go to the doctor's office and get them you need court orders and that's what the defendant and the defense come so was doing took action every time came back to the well i would say that that's not enough when you look at the minor inconvenience it continues to find out if detected jamison had that and to look at the importance that this was to the fence  the actions that she had taken the fact that seven days elapsed when the information is in control of you know is a state in the state's witness a i mean this detective jamison was very active in the the state having ahold of this evidence purposely didn't turn it over to the defense what the state representation had been was that they were not aware of any positive tests they never said that there was no tie so i don't know if the prosecutors inquired into whether any testing or looked into that their representation was we're not aware of any positive test but never you know they never even say it in your brief so that in the that you know they never gave an affirmative explicit answer no she was tested it was negative or you know the mammas can feel that she was tested for this that's just where she was never tested or she was not tested they never to the preparation of the defense ok thank you you thank