court overrides the defendant's at the moment right and forces him to testify regarding a separate pending case here it resulted in mr stevens being forced to try to exonerate himself in the b p case on trial while separate what we call a mini trial in the brief it was more than that it was essentially another trial but without the constitutional or procedural safeguards that he had in recent in respect to the case on trial  he's going to get question about that when that comes in a substantive evidence  mr stevens attorney and mr stevenson could not expect that that they would be forced to answer questions about the b p case unless they had specifically opened the door to questions with his direct examination just looking at the the case law from illinois historically that discusses the scope of the proper scope of proper cross examination the breath of a defendant's waiver you look to what the defendant actually testified to at the trial and here the i've never forcibly had sex with anyone or if he had denied if you testify that he did not commit the assault against argy then of course he's opened the doors that testimony and basic fairness would read but allow the state to then cross examine him about that if we find there could be find that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt no your honor this is a preserve there yet and so that the state  certainly there was evidence of guilt and that in the b p case but here we have a trial court specifically finding on the record and commenting about the defendant's testimony in a pending case which he hasn't he's presumed it of innocent of that case this a this was an unconstitutional mini trial in the context of the case he was actually on trial for and again the trial court specifically relied upon this evidence  it's clear that the troubled judge relied upon that evidence to to find mr stevens guilty in the case on trial but i guess i'm still talking about this beyond a reasonable doubt  level of the evidence well this is this is a constitutional issue that this court has a duty to enforce the constitution i mean i don't see what you're saying that there was evidence of guilt in the case but about a pending case where the defendant i mean it's not the same attorney who is representing mr stevens in the argee case in the b p he's there's no way for mr stevens attorney and the  testify in rebuttal and testify extensively about your say statements that mr stevens made regarding the argy matter after his arrest mr stevens never got a chance to possibly have those statements thrown out we don't know that the admissibility of those statements we don't know if mr stevens attorney had access to any of the the discovery in the spending case he's not representing mr stevens in that case testimony rescinded and the judge would not allow that he was forced to testify ok you mentioned before credibility right so there what about the issue of the fact that you said he didn't bring up  record and it didn't bring it up but he with respect to the b p case he did say that the sex with a thirteen year old girl was consensual right that's when he was forced to answer questions on fair at that point in time to attack the credibility of the consensual defense by bringing up the urge eks notion to show that there the answer was incredible no because that the state already was able to do that by cross examining the defen but when you can be told all the time answer the question you don't have to answer the question right i mean you can assert the privilege and that's the end of the story right as if their particular point in time i mean obviously there would have was prejudice here well i think looking at the facts of this case it could but for that the trial court judge specifically relying upon the testimony from mr stevens about and someone else i mean and then secondly again with respect to produce the defendant here it mid albeit his defense was it was consensual was with this thirteen year old he admitted there was  this testimony preposterous and was and was clearly influenced by how much mr stevens credibility was destroyed because of this this mini trial that occurred in the context of the actual case on trial i mean reviewing courts have allowed evidence of of other crimes some some facts other crimes have come in to show motive they've come in to basically complete the picture of what's happened in the case the williams case is a good example where the other crime was enough to meet the court allowed that other evidence to come in because it explained the motive in the murder that happened as a result of the means and so there's a direct would be sanctioning the states itself to open the door to cross examination because the evidence has already come in and see this limited statutory exemption that allows and the evidence to come in assume he did not open the door and then they started asking questions or got into the or or g case counsel objected the objections to the questions were overruled defender now after the question if defendant at that point said i refuse to answer this asserting fifth member grounds what happens i guess it's up to the judge at that point well do you the objection is to the question is not to the answer of the responses although i like we can't i don't know what happens off the record about what what the judge said but the facts of the judge's ruling was that mr stevens felt compelled to answer questions on cross examination and his pursuant to the statute but what if they got three are we going to ask a defendant to not only represent him not only defend himself in the case on trial but then have three other many trials or three other cases that  did then cross examine away he's opened the door that's basic law basic arrest and here's the quote he does not there by way this privilege of refusing to reveal other on lawful acts only unconnected with the act of which he has spoken even though they may be material to the issue that's precisely the situation here the argy case is not  it's wholly unconnected to the b p offense and it's only connected by virtue of the state being able to bring in this propensity evidence again to show propensity but not as direct evidence of guilt in the d p case in the specifically relied upon that testimony and finding mr stevens guilty in the p p case so he's guilty in this case you have been acquitted that's the question of what's not now what's going to happen in the in the argee case he's already well the state argy did come in and testified pursuant to the statute of about what happened what she alleged happened between him so if they decided for a minute just based on the testimony of the defendant regarding b p is having concert con defended taking the stand they're saying in this particular case in the b p case it was consensual search they have the right to show that in other circumstances the same claim may have been made but the person indicated that it wasn't no because it's another that i'm not aware of any any case anywhere that has allowed that so you'd be the first one i'm not doing  relevant cross examination which is determined by the trial judge who has the discretion to allow it and which is also determined by the evidence at trial and defendant statement and statements or testimony on direct examination examination on those facts and here before defendant testified there was a pretrial motion where the court allowed other crimes of events of argy and two other victims allowed and not just the propensity but also for intent motive and identity and when the case went to trial b p testified as you know that she was approached by defendant he put a weapon ter back took her to another location and forced a no vachon and oral sex on her then the state presented r g p and their case and she who also testified she was approached by defendant from behind when she was on the platform you forced her to another location he performed or forced her to perform oral defendant had knew this these facts before he chose to testify he knew there was a pretrial motion he knew that both argee and b p testified and when the defendant testified he did instigated the best thirteen year old b p she navigated at she was asking him please can i perform oral sex on you would you please perform anal sex on me and as you may recall i said you know i thought that was a prosecutor asked started asking about argy and in your position and that's where this question us your position seems to be that the on the whole fifth amendment issue i mean put aside again the other crime so if you're saying that once he testified that it was consensual sex with b p that you had the right to attack the credibility of that assertion by  asking him about energy exactly and that's why i asked him if do you would you have that right would you have the same right to bring energy forget the other crimes evidence that was allowed even if it wasn't would you have been allowed to bring in  or those circumstances to say it that's not what happened with me i mean he may be seen saying in that same song again but it's not true yes you attack the credibility because you're you're taking the position that there's all other issues or you're in this with them we've been discussed but you're taking the position that you were able to ask the question because credibility with his credibility now became an issue when he from central sort from yes your honor that and his intent had become a nationality he was saying this was consensual i did not have this but forcible rape with b p my intent an element of the crime is now issue and then ask which i might add to fan it is conceding that it was admissible he's not he's not arguing that the court should not have allowed this evidence and receiving conceding it's admissible show intent you know begging for essentially so we were allowed to question about r g p not only to attack his credibility and this consents you know testimony that he gave but also to prove a substantive issue in th and if that makes a difference in our analysis no words what is the issue to which this cross examination was thrown was it relevant to his propensity to commit this kind of crime to the nature of his character and whether p was not was a criminal intent that it was forced sex i'm b p that it was not this consensual situation but also with the propensity evidence it came in also as propensity to show that it as this court ruled in donahoe that there's recidivism with sex offenders and that's why it's allowed in in the first place that it's less likely that that that  provo williams and show support that because an each of those cases the defendant was allowed to be cross examined about things that he did not testify about undirected examination and that was because it proved in provo it was intent williams it was motive and cop show it was to attack his credibility and each time we the state was allowed to do it because there was a substantive purpose or something other than than just you know questioning him for no reason it went right to his guts and that's why it was allowed and went to the substantive issue in the case not collateral as defendant is claiming was like lateral this goes right to an have man comrie and that's where you're trying to bring in another crime just for impeachment purposes and no one's saying that there's any relation between the crime or any use for him to impeach the defendant's credibility if he chooses to testify and the case connection between b p and our g e which the court ruled on which defendant is not contesting that we're lying so it was for a purpose other than just impeaching his credibility it was also for proving intent and his motive and  controls whether that the truth is coming on because that's the whole reason we do the trial is to get the truth out so we can learn what happened and to say for him to live to pick up that shiel the fifth amendment shield when he doesn't want to talk about something even though he knows it's it came in as relevant evidence and as here is not even contesting that and that would subvert the fact finding process getting to the truth was b p really sexually  gnats and to give the defendant those keys to that car instead of leaving it with the trial judge would be it would really destroy the whole fact finding process and this court recently held and more of that the fact finding the fact finder much have logically must have as access to as much relevant admissible evidence as possible without that the reliability of the backbiters conclusions is called into question and that's exactly what would well i mean it was out there anyway yes regardless of what the defendants were didn't say exactly and also defended it just like you said your honor all the evidence was already an  regardless i mean yes he should have been crossed on it to prove the element of intent in this case and his propensity but that we've already we already had evidence of that and this isn't a situation i want to add there's a there was no evidence brought in on it there was no pretrial motion and basically what the state was trying to do is get him to admit to something so they could charge him with something this is not a situation like that this is not a sit an ambush by the state this is a defendant totally aware of what the evidence says when he makes that decision to testify and i might add to that the fund is now saying that this testimony alone on cross about r g p created a mini trial he only evidence of argy was so limited it was just her testifying and we had we were required to put on that the tech is to find it was impeached about the statements he made to the police after he was arrested for the argy case so we're required to put on a detective and i believe it was three pages of the entire record which was devoted to that battle on just cross examining him on r g did not create a mini trial and absolutely the trial judge is able to  distinguish the difference and can separate what's the other crimes evidence and what's the substantive case it is different than a jury this isn't a situation where the jury might get confused the trial judge absolutely now knew  and i want to answer to that if if our g hadn't testified we absolutely have to fend it would have testified to a consent defense with b p we could have put our geonim or our bottle case which happens all the time which is put on him or bottle to provide it obviously we couldn't cross him on it as there's no evidence at trial which but if we could put her on him or bottle but in this case we put her on in our case in chief to prove the elements of aggravated criminal sexual assault so for my last argument your honor so even if this was an error it was absolutely harmless i have already told kind of went over the facts with the victim's testified too but also there was d n a evidence b p when she came home ill and vomited and that when she had to testify and point him out in court on the record you can see she was very upset plus r g s testimony was which is which is such a similar violation of the constitution it can't come out in violation of the amendment it can't come out and the result be a very real chilling effect on a defendant six men the right to testify at trial there is a difference it's not direct evidence of guilt in the case on trial so it is a critical difference that it was had other purposes its purpose was to prove other crimes intent is that during the colloquy when all of this is taking place it was never made clear to the judge the purpose for this evidence well the statute allows it to come in for basically everything under the sun seemingly but i guess the important point is i was used at the state the state's cross force cross mr stevens and then the testimony from detective urban that came gotcha williams in provo obviously address those i touched on williams in my opening argument and again there's a direct connection between the other crime and the case on trial the the meat provided the motive for the murder the case on trial that completed the picture there was a direct link not so here gotcha was the same thing it wasn't even another crime that came in it was that he had written letters to his alleged girlfriend witness and he in mr gubb so testified in the court allowed them allowed cross examination about those letters there's a direct link there and this and the same the moment again it was that that cross examination was about a second older black hole in the wall that helped and went directly to the defendant's testimony about the case it and the court's language there was a true light to cross examination on a pending case by introducing evidence pursuant to a extremely limited statutory exception to other crimes and it's this court has not allowed to check your facts about other crimes to come in other unconstitutional other trial about a pending case and this is that this issue is not worth it to fit them in issue as ject the two it was preserved arguments of about many trials is just natural extension and basically a policy argument about what occurs as a result of the error it's not entirely new objection are issues that we're raising out of out of  and again it wasn't just the cross examination of mr stevens that made this an improper mini trial it didn't stop there the detective came in and testified extensively about statements that mr stevens allegedly to him multiple statements and statements to an assistant state's attorney and it was that testimony coupled with the forced testimony about argy from the defendant that elevated again a mere propensity determination to basically direct evidence in the case that the trial court explicitly relied upon to find him guilty in the