please the court today i will be arguing the first two issues phrase in the brief first issue like this it will to prove murphies guilt beyond a reasonable doubt where there was no corroboration of the corpus the lack diet and second issue to the trial chambers bedroom closet yet somehow mr murphy is now serving six years and six months in the department of corrections for a gun that very clearly belonged to darlene chambers was there anything in  the whole point of this first issue is that murphy's conviction must be reversed with all kind of pending crap or a sheen of his statement where we have more than just a steak and then we have his spontaneous statement in the apartment that  there's a guy here not know where he is and then you take that with his later mission you got a little bit more well your honor i think if we look at his first statements closely instead of showing that he committed this crime they actually do the opposite the officers that he gave this as his address so if you take all that together could you say that you know just under general reasonable doubt sufficiency of the evidence that perhaps there's enough to support the address listed in the driver's license we have none of that in the case at barton in fact officer he's admitted that this could have been important evidence that they didn't seek well moving on to your next argument ineffective assistance now why don't you tell us honor minnesota versus olson is extremely factual some factually similar to the case that bar in olson of the funding had done their quote maybe a night and had a change of clothes in the apartment so exactly is that we have a change of clothes and although we don't have a statement that there may be a night we do have statements from darlene and the key to chambers that he did not reside there was an overnight guess there now the state attempts to say on one hand that murphy admittedly there could be more facts developed at the suppression hearing that could shed light on this issue which is exactly what we're asking for now if we get to the merits of this issue this strategy by coun your honor it appears from the record that counsel thought that that may be a valid thing to file at his motion for a directed finding team noted that the arrest warrant involved a different individual and that there was a discrepancy  was arrested and that's on the record of huge the fifty or so council evidence his belief that perhaps the arrests as well as this seizure of this gun right issues these are all facts and officer is in an apartment looking to execute the arrest warrant and they have the right to look for me here press where and there they are told that there's a gun somewhere that they don't have the right to at least your honor the defendant was arrested when he was rude from the home in handcuffs or and it would be your position that at that point all police get was basically a gun and  so he was being arrested for this gun after he had said there's a gun here but it belongs to the papers mother it was it many's the aircraft and arrested and taken to the station yes your honor and defense counsel noted that he occurred and just seeing his conviction unless there's any other questions i'd like to reserve a few moments for about all  get morning may please to court the people proved that defendant committed the offense of harm to biju a criminal yonder reasonable doubt and the people sufficiently established  consent to enter the apartment from like chambers and to look for trouble once they were inside the apartment one of the first things they did and it's important to first note that sergeant more than one person in the apartment and no other information and they except they maybe know that mr murphy is a convicted felon so they go when they pick where is the constructive possession to establish probable cause to arrest the fact that there was a bag of clothes that's never been inventoried vicki brushed his teeth or was seen brushing his teeth and the fact that at some point he gave that dress or something which i think was in the record it says after he was processed so what they have is a toothbrush  where is this other element of constructive possession we have we can save you have the knowledge but we're is this constructive this is actual we know that right we're dealing with construction we don't have actual possession the gun is in a person a closet you know so we're working with constructive possession yet and the trier of fact could make reasonable one reasonable human being somebody who was not common tose wouldn't be nervous under those circumstances so let's do away with that right after after the gun is recovered defendant reiterate step well at that point the police wanna after that question so they do what's reasonable yes they say well we need to call darlene who happens to be out of town so that would be accurate they call how does that get us to it her from possible prosecution would not and from back negative you turn it to a positive that it must be this gun or there must be probable cause that it's his and that's really what i think justice mcbride my raskin about how that happened how the back did not get off over the telephone by someone who apparently would have been surprised that a police officer from chicago was calling her and asking her about a weapon be turned into a probable cause that he construct if we possessed the gun that's what we're having difficulty with i believe trial motion whenever there are several reasons first the defendant's theory all along has been that the gun belong to darling so he would not have had a legitimate expectation of privacy and a gun for the area where the gun was searched second of all they got the police acted properly in this case they were illegally in the apartment looking for potentially dangerous person once they hear that there's a gun in the apartment they have to see if there actually is a gun yank i completely agree  doing there's a problem with them recovering this it's just that i don't know what strategy that i don't see that as being reasonable strategy i think there's an argument that with lawyer should have filed a couple of  let's want to prejudice if he files the motion and there's there's success there not only does the gun go but the statement at the police station cell are there's the prejudice reasonable doubt they reversed out right because the gun was gone so that would support that but what about even taking it further and getting sick now because he's been arrested and he makes this statement after arrest that will say  eard that there was a gun in the apartment and reasonably calling darlene chambers out of state and confronting her with the question and getting the answer that they did is it reasonable th they found they recovered the weapon exactly where to defend it told them the weapon was the purse didn't have anything and there is nothing else in the purse besides the guy so basically you equate the knowledge that he had with probable cause of constructive possession despite the presence of another person in the apartment and the presence of another person who had denied possession of it in a telephone call so you say you don't lose elements are sufficient for probable cause to arrest on constructive possession given if he was an overnight guest and had a tooth brush and a change of clothes in the apartment that's really the lynchpin of your position is it not yes right when all the circumstances i looked at when the police knocked on the door the door wasn't answered immediately so one can reasonably infer that questions that have to be decided by a trier of fact you keep referring to is if we've had one of these issues where these were you know this was a unique situation where they're in they're executing on and there are attempting to execute an arrest warrant they discover this gun it's loaded  measured response they didn't want to turn up on anyone's rights here they only did  and at that point the police had probable cause to believe one there's an offense that was committed and sure to find it was the person who committed the offense they say they didn't just judge said you could do it before trial you could even do it during the trial but he can't do it after the trial isn't that it pass a good mission the question trial strategy not to try to challenge that that it was it a mistake about the trial strategy you turn to the success component of it and we you know that's not the time for that the we've lost that said in fact you've said it yourself that there are determinations that need to be made by a trier of fact what we've said is but no trier of fact got the opportunity to do that and then you said yes but it's trial strategy and i'm saying how as a trial strategy would after hearing all the evidence the lawyer said this is what i want to do now isn't that a tacit admission that he feels like he should have done it earlier and whether he feels like he should have done it earlier isn't it something when we analyze the first of strickland that we can say he should have done it earlier well the the focus of the analysis is what counsel was thinking at the time anything else you really want to  honour's mr murphy was arrested in this apartment we know that from ph d forty six of the record were officer tim he's testified that murphy was arrested after the call to dine in chambers furthermore on ph d sixteen officer  we're going to switch panels now so they'll be a brief recess before we resume to call the next case