that there was no substantial difference in defending against the use of the july and you know what is the difference well the incident the difference is primarily they are most exemplified by the nature of cross see a nation that defense counsel would conduct when the standard is free simple doubt as opposed to the cross honor i don't know the answer to the trial least my experience from friends he says it's that if the ropes pulled out from under me and the very day of trial and i understand that the state's motion was presented let's see st thing in the morning and the day of trial and monday morning and then in tiger trial this case to verdict was completed in a one day period i would say to your writers that no matter what kind of  case the walker case being to the best of my research the last time the illinois supreme court has directly addressed the effectors that should be considered in considering issues are extremely difficult issues in many ways but one of my own perception of work which are issue is it tends to be a two way street if you don't ask me a question about what you don't understand in my argument i can't explain to you what i don't understand you know bloody ask defense counsel what we need to be done what is the parent from  that would require a continuance it may require a a refocusing or reformulation or as you said indirectly striking questions that think that after a trial in a post trial motion i would have an idea of why my client didn't have affective assistance of counsel because in retrospect was able to figure out what i should have done it didn't do or what i could have dug up was not allowed to and so the the problem i have with your position continuance have given a defense counsel so that he could properly prepare for whatever it was which we don't know the difference between the two because he never been conducted and that he had no after presenting an argument as to why this propensity evidence was more prejudicial the an it was appropriate to and i could argue that issue from now to sundown because i do not in my opinion believe that this balancing test necessarily would  the propensity evidence in this case and the charge for which he was ultimately convicted occurred in a one month actually and i know we're talking counterfactual conditionals but the point is that's the whole problem is we don't we haven't been able to discern how your client was adversely affected by the failure to exercise the balancing test well i understand that but i would also submit to the court that a comparison with the walker case i mean except for the fact that the woman was helped to trial i don't think that it is clear or that the supreme court's decision is based and basically throughout the entire trial walker's attorney did nothing that the securities walker counsel did nothing basically didn't have a clue really what was going on so he's the message that we if we are from this decision is the message that we're sending the counsel you know what if your motion continues tonight just sit there and act dumb because you try to do the best you can then there's no in the breeze we don't we just don't have facts and soon we don't have any we have mere speculation that something magical could have been done differently but we don't know what that would be  trails you get trapped there the week before you're you're ramping up when you're getting ready and if you're not expecting to go to trial that day you wouldn't be  you might have that witnesses they want to talk to talk to their client you know that happens on the days right shortly before trial and the day of trial but the other thing i'd like to just mention is that we keep getting into this whole bouncing  situation and it it's kind of been a little bit of a moving target because it seems as though this is being argued explain why in fact the court did say i don't see the evidence he met he mentioned the three different factors that you're supposed to consider and he said that he was living it in he says that this is exactly what this statute is designed for him to do when he mentions the factors also i don't you would normally be balancing as you would with any evidence if you had a relevant evidence and somebody raised up for over three objection that it was unduly precious you would balance to the extent it's not raised the court might not do it but in fact  evidence heard how it was presented and got another opportunity to consider this whole issue also felt that which connects had made the right decision that was just kind of like sad that he you had noticed that these facts were coming in and it wasn't going to change that and we still to this day did not have any question with no one no additional witness we had one thing this wasn't fact cross examines the police officer was calicut looking at it after the trial in retrospect both felt this was completely appropriate and they have that discretion to do th it's almost it's similar to almost like an act of god in the sense that you can't blame it on anybody there to consult with the client perhaps to reconsider the status of plea i don't think that you can charge counsel with being able to make those important considerations and to discuss them yet but leave the client in the period of time of a single day monday morning quarterbacking and it relates to football but it has been used to cross the board in many ways to suggest that have somebody thought it over and  if you in my opinion haven't come up with a monday morning quarterbacking alternative i don't know how there can be any prejudice