this is your second one that i see i think the first one i saw was you presumably your first album and although i must confess when i started trying cases i somehow like the jui feel that my first four or five cases were my cases where the justice called him seems to find her support of that notwithstanding some of the more general language in smith that davis pulls it back and makes it all dependent upon whether there is a where the best basically an argument in favor of require special for addicts even paul it's the same crime in the case of the murder versus intentional or knowing murder but it's not a case that necessarily supports the sewing spontaneous requirement of a court to provide to a special  all of the evidence standard is there any question can you establish that the outcome would have been different in the sense that jury would have simply come up with this murder verdict when there was clear statement in on videotape about you know what what she what the others testified was  in smith and mack state that in this kind of situation where it's not possible to ascertain the actual jury verdicts you have to presume prejudice because there is no actual finding to review tells me but but that doesn't negate looking at the evidence case and intentional murder is that you know the great lengths that they want to closing argument to focus on felony murder you know not only they're arguing that this is a perfect perfect example of felony murder it doesn't matter whether you find that she wanted to kill this man it doesn't matter whether lot of evidence to establish and incidentally when you would specialize verdicts for the same crime as opposed to having separate by counsel does it logically follows to say really without any legal analysis that ok that means when there is an objection you know there's no problem here you know looking at the actual actual legal analysis conduct brief to your arguments that's the theory behind the fact that you can't spring surprises  to separate the notion of voluntary manslaughter or second degree murder from the notion of mitigation of the sockets so that even some factors that to the level of reducing the murder to second degree it's still plays its part in mitigating the suckers and i think that's a point that's well taken i say that that's a softball because i want your opponents to respond to that since in their briefs they do but there is some attempt here to intermingle both of those facts are and and to add to that on behalf of people of the state of illinois with regard to the severity of the science in this case the judge did consider the fact that the defendant claims that she was acting out of the alleged sexual assault of her child in committing the act was there any question that subjectively she was even if there might be a question as to whether this vector that was the perpetrator of the abuse against the one year old child was there any real question that in your mind he was new york i was only there isn't that question then the distinction for some purposes of a sentence is a very slim she acting as a as a martyr who believes her child was abused by this victim in doing what she did your honor whether or not she believes that she was acting on behalf of her child the but it balances that against the fact that the victim was tortured and he was driven around in the trunk of a car while these women went to a liquor store and they got their flat tire on their car console is that yes it is say if a concentration camp victim meets a car in the street and tortures the guard and kills the guard should his crime or her crying be given any characterization or any concerns should consideration be given to the fact that this person believes that the person who was tortured and killed was the guard at the concentration camp who abused me perpetrator or the perpetrators family should some consideration be given to that sub which can stretch  are considered what what language would you take from his sentence it would indicate to us if he gave any consideration at all that the fact that he stated that he was even understanding that the defendant was acting with the belief seen when it came to miss california but it was a minimum sentence for the other two three year honor and terrence jones was actually sensed more than twenty years however it it probably was child so i mean this is that the kind of person that's not even remarks all immediately she goes to the police station she's that arrested as i just say i don't see how the court considered any of th gate the maximum of what what is the point that how do you get to a consideration that i might just here's the question how do you get to consideration factors when you give him the maximum defendant's was found by this court to have been incapable of understanding the miranda pressure on her liquid account when the defendant in this particular argument had made it through the eleventh grade at englewood high school which had actually within the world in college at the time so there is evidence that these defendants absolutely were aware of what they were doing the creators stated that she dropped out of high school due to her first pregnancy but there that would indicate that bad belief was anything other than sincere and also was there evidence in this case that would indicate that for whatever whatever weight that carries convinced that he did it isn't that what she comes salters her sister down consult her sister about the involvement of take an older sister out whether or not the child looks normal exams or for genitalia yes and then it was also brought out with her and get the flat tire fixed in the car and then run over the victim with the car four times in her own statement two times according to the contradictions between the statements that she's the first one being next to her the second one  if but she is loved the world's most likely candidate for a maximum sentence on the other hand the other parallax is to look at the manner in which she carried out th and this court if a dead beat made very little left for interweaving the two to see how a mother under strong provocation can become very excessive add very vengeful all carried away in the manner in which she commits the crime now is there no possibility here of reconciling the two and and and and for forming a sentence that reflects both as opposed to giving this woman the maximum of sixty years as if the prosecution didn't count at all your honor i believe the court as i stated  circumstances i'm likely to recur and that's i don't think very disputable here this is not and i viewing with up a criminal with a long rap sheet we're dealing with a woman who had some misdemeanor of marijuana case the defendant's theory of the case her defense was that she acted in provocation for the purported sexual abuse of her child as such but she's seeking as a not guilty verdict on intentional murder provide the jury with a specific verdict for felony murder which would lend itself to a strict liability convection would make no sense on behalf of defense counsel it would water down their own defense theory of the case and what it would do is provide the jury with an easy out for perhaps those members of the jury that were would not have benefited by all while it would have reduced the potential sentencing to concurrent sentences it would not have afforded him a not guilty verdict because the defendant never denied that she could not and should pose a sort of strict liability offense for and kidnapping would have rendered a virtual immediate you think that the defendant in this case is entitle to have us hear this as a direct appeal was as opposed to would appeal for in effect of assistance of counsel that that that the defendant is entitled to have us consider the propriety in the first instance of this court without the rid of for not know the only thing that could happen here was that she was going to get an additional seven years well there's a strict liability you know if separate verdict forms are given the jury still given instructions if they can find her guilty of felony murder with this general murder