before we began i just like to acknowledge that justice clinton is not with us today i'm he's unable to be here but he does have the briefs he is prepared and he will be participating on this and to the arguments would say just go then what i would say is that in this case involving the stolen motor vehicle the state filed a pretrial motion to admit several prior convictions the first was the open title conviction that just been injured in the previous case the second was a cook county conviction a class one felony theft or theft over five hundred thousand dollars and the third was a two thousand legislatively created to require to allow the bringing of prior convictions outside of that realm where convictions are never admitted as other crimes of evidence in the state indicate on the record during the course of that up direction that if you're going to do it we only want the conviction well and that's part of the reason that i began by referencing to the other case is because there at counsel said there was no connection between these two and so how so argued largely that it was improper because there's no connection that can be had because it doesn't fit in the life of th you also distinguish the offenses that were being used in this instance shame who was one of the items that was possessed a large amount of shampoo so for now obviously the jury didn't know about that but even if it had there is no connection to me so there were some specific arguments related to the nature of those offenses versus what we said in our response a brief to the stay was that where where an error is introduced for one where an action is requested by one side they can then object when when it happens that way but the side that is having the action committed against them over their record then has the right to say well if it's going to happen that way then this is how we want to live so my question to you live in this that the defense counsel say concern that we're the state allowed to act in other cases the way the did here that it basically him does the rule of money it allows the state in almost every in and you might be able to limit we're trying to limit but part of the problem is when you then say well you can use these for this purpose it creates the thought that there there is something going on here me did the court do a balancing test in relationship to the pretrial motion in the interview the judge in both montgomery and a balancing test in impeachment purposes ok let me tell you and please clear it up in my mind what i thought happened in this case is the certified copies of conviction came in during the state's case and she with out a discussion of in each and then the sky but there there was also a discussion i believe nationally about whether this qualified as a conviction because the defendant that you have to be something which to me isn't a problem because that's the way you prove prior defense counsel someone made that connection early on when he said during the discussion on the pretrial that this may not even be allowable if he doesn't testify  e three thirteen and three fourteen conflicted with each other yes and if they did address the same convictions that were admitted for dual purposes one instruction said you can only consider these convictions with regard to credibility and for no other reason and then the very next instruction says well you can consider these and such to say that an answer whether you know with respect to this that and then the state or you you can use these for both purposes can yeah you can use because he's a liar and you can use it because it shows what his statement there's a there's some case law out there that says when you have conflicting jury instruction that's bieber's that's the person but nobody's or i'll turn briefly to the question which i will in in shorthand fashion refer to as the bailey was for or hears i think it has been standard practice particularly in the jurisdiction statement that we provide t baling very recently the supreme court i think clarified that language and spotlighted where people have been making a mistake or a long time when the supreme court said under our usual rules a trial court loses jurisdiction to hear it because at the end of the thirty day window following in three of the final judgment in baling the motion was filed three and a half years following sentence here it is filed within thirty days of the probably never last year's election it could have been that had the state objected that time there was a concern and the cork would have refused it at that time because there was no filing in the thirty day window following the or if the motion directed against the judgment is timely filed within thirty days after the entry of the order disposing of the motion well the first half dozen a bike is a notice of appeal wasn't filed within thirty days of sentencing and the second half doesn't apply  or in the other a motion to reduce and this was ending at the time he motion for a new trial was filed so they really didn't deal with the the notice of appeal issue but in this judge to consider the motion to reconsider because he chose to do so but that's all right but that even though he had the right to consider that motion to reconsider which is aimed at the judgment itself the underlying judgment you couldn't then file a notice of appeal at the time so the motion for new trial was filed on june fed and the court still had keys under one fifteen dash seven point three where it could be used for propensity but regardless of whether the purpose for which the evidence could be used for is different for a for b says evidence of other crimes whether relating to that statute or whether relating to these not propensity uses so the people believe that felix doesn't buy and these convictions were properly admitted or the judge was within his discussion in a meeting that for the purpose is to show knowledge in really hampered by design this in the us of the prosecutor in court and it seems to me that the reason the state wanted these convictions there was not to show that there was some sort of pattern that would negate very briefly i think there is legitimate concern or the integrity of these two trials and this one in particular as they were conducted by the trial court and by the overzealous actions of the prosecutor when it's always disturbing when a prosecutor has a case that is wholly formed and has a very strong case and then resorts to overkill and takes what is a very good case in the air case and makes it unfair by doing things that are on this is harry took up with his and what we hope for is a skill prosecutor recognizes the strength of this case and what he has and does nothing to bring that in jeopardy or to bring the system into disrepute but when when you go too far then it brings into question  and i'm going to keep that evidence that what the judge did here at the request of the prosecutors say because here had by ten runs the normal rules don't apply to you you know you can have six vol are there are different matters here and and so since say that well he must have known that it was stolen because he is full of them or distorts what what the evidence shows but the evidence really shows the jury nothing strong as the state law if they have to go to these sorts of after if they have to resort to that which clearly isn't fair or proper in this case i would note that in the young which the bring it in in your case but you've been defending it gets up on the stand and makes these sorts of claims then all they can bring it in the problem is that here that the defendant was deprived of the normal choice and i realize that it's different with impeachment evidence i think the principals saying in a montgomery type situation the defendant knows going in if i get up on the stand and testify these convictions are going to come in and he's then has the choice of testifying or not knowing what is going to happen if he does here that choice is taken away from those convictions were coming in and while sensibly the jury was going to be told it was for a limited purpose it was actually or greater there and i agree particularly then when you couple that with you can use it for this other limited purpose of not believing anything he said and when he got up to testify which he basically had to do now to explain he didn't explain prior conditions he didn't talk about how he was limited in the work that you did because of a prior but he didn't he didn't explain what those conditions were for  or therefore there there are a number of concerns that this permeated this trial and tainted the evidence that could legitimately you brought forward it's is the integrity of the system that i think is allows or prevents a conviction them from being brought in simply as evidence standing on its own he's been convicted before we don't have to go to any further off so for those reasons we would ask th and the implications of it as well as i said earlier you're going to have intent and knowledge in practically every criminal case i can think of a few exceptions that are very well recklessness all but for the most part intent and would your arguments be in one respect and wouldn't in one would not i mean obviously the the title of the offense is going to be the say but the question is still