the only reason why this case did not begin trial on march twenty fourth is because the state discloses the real late defense counsel performed efficiently by allowing the trial court to attribute this continuance to mr both the court and the prosecutor were having issues about being ready for trial that day the judge explained that he wouldn't be able to start trial and so the afternoon and the prosecutors said that the only witness the rusting officer had hadn't slept in two days and had to go to work at six o'clock and not getting any sleep the starting trial in the afternoon may not be small what the court did was told the parties to come back at least twelve fifteen in the afternoon to see if they could get trial started there is not a transcript available as to what happened that afternoon all we know is that the court issued a written order providing that the continuance of granted on the defense motion and that fed into the dusty trial would be told we acknowledged county circuit court and they contacted the court reporter and and there's no transfer files made i also spoke to trial counsel to see if she could recollect what happened to possibly two bystanders report were read stating facts and she said looking at the trial at the at the transcripts that are available and finding that they're inconsistent with the court's written orders that's my argument i mean in a perfect world the record would be better developed would have a transcript of what happened that afternoon it's can see that for or a number of scenarios that could have happened that afternoon but it's our position that given what we know on the record the most the most reasonable thing that we can say that happened is the most likely thing to have been is that i've poured over prosecutor we're not ready can be afternoon and defense counsel agreed to a continuance to accommodate them so again we know that that morning defense counsel said she was ready and we know still if it would have been january twenty sixth would been the deadline record and you compare that to about the boundary lines of will include counties with which we've requested the dischord take you to notice of is our position at that conclusively establishes that this offense occurred in cook county not in the will county in my opening brief i included a screenshot from the dash cam video i would encourage each of your riders to not only look at the map also look at the dash cam video the video shows it the scene much much clearer than the screen shot in terms of determining where mr mooney and the car are in relation to all of the of the landmarks that are in the area case law is clear that state attorneys do not have authority to prosecute offenses that occur i do not believe the statute there's not a statute that explicitly states prosecuting offenses occurring outside of your county you could us in areas where multiple states attorneys are trying to prosecute the same offense and you don't defendants facing multiple charges for the same offense in different counties  it's kind of theoretical but he was not charged on the basis of the accident or anything he was charged with driving on a suspended license is that enough and that occurs throughout the state county i mean if if you're caught see if you have a police officer near a border and he sees you say driving in cook county across the border into will county and he pulls you over will county i i  drive for uptown i don't think that would mean that you're committing an offense in every county i mean it would be similar to to murder i mean we've got the state statute that covers acts throughout the state properly cite here for driving or suspended license when he in fact failing to move to dismiss on the grounds of the speedy trial violation and if it was it arrested for driving on a suspended license which of course is a state law violation this occurred on february second twenty fourteen bonded out on that same day because he was not in jail speedy trial period is one hundred sixty days in that term began on august twentieth twenty fourteenth the day after he filed his written demand for the circuit clerk and gave oral notice in court to finish bases his claim with three days in the people of course of a conceded as to oct twenty seventh twenty fourteen the second date was january fifth twenty fifteen and at that time one hundred thirty nine days of one hundred sixty day period had run then on january fifth defended announced he was ready for trial judge said to defend its case would be first up in the afternoon and directed the prosecutor here to vent a bribe to the court of twelve thirty the prosecutor agreed that the bench trial should last about a half an hour everyone's intent was to hold the trial that afternoon on january fifth this counsel as noted there was is no transcript existing for the afternoon of january fifth but the trial judge's order states quote defendant agrees that speedy trials told until three twenty four fifteen in his main brief depended acknowledged the rule that a defendant occasions  when he agrees to it continuance is asking this court to speculate as to why defended may have agreed to a continues after announcing he's ready for trial but the rule is that a review in court must construe any doubt  the trial was continued on motion of defendant and defended agrees that speedy is told until four twenty one fifteen and defense argues that courts look to the underlying factors in determining whether delay is a truly to the defendant defendant's trial attorney said that she had refused to receive the video from the arresting officer squad car on the morning of march twenty fourth but neither she nor the prosecutor knew why she just received that video  the trial just can't gave kelso the opportunity to review the video that morning and i'm going to whole trial of seeing the afternoon the king also chose not to do so she later reviewed the video with sound in the middle of trial  i'm not going to represent that but certainly counsel could have done due diligence and certainly asked the officer or the prosecutor if there was of the resisting prior to that date date rice that it was this far into the case and certainly but that's that's correct and no doubt about that but again in this type of mr mueller case it is not required under the discovery yes everyone was so in the opportunity though was given not saying that at all i'm just saying that under a supreme court case the schmidt it it's not required in mr bean or cases it's not you know it's only discoverable if it included a confession or evidence indicating the guilt that he found it which in this case apparently did not contain that i mean we see that the video doesn't show the defendant driving at all shows that the vehicle in the snow bank on the opposite side of this region in will county and for these reason w second issue is where the defendant claims the accident took it occurred in cook county and it will county state's current attorney had no authority to prosecute and we initially argue that he forfeited this argument because he didn't raise it below south to put the car on the right side of that photo as it is shown the line marking the north end of the intersection is clearly visible at the bottom of the folder photo closest to the view is to the south seeing the car over here  opposite end of the intersection next to a light pole which can only be at the south end of the intersection and watchable box near to the north end of the intersection will county is on the west side of western avenue it's some distance to the right reasonable in this case where the the officer testified that the incident was in will county and the photos seem to show that the line is very close but the car was itself an intersection just south of long for will or what about the last continuance with the video or not video you know video you know written order we don't know what happened there's no transcript on that that afternoon we don't know what happened exactly we do know that that when she received the video i'm sorry i'm talking we're talking about march twenty fourth not that you know when she did  on that day she the judge it was in the morning the judge said you have the opportunity to read you the video that we can you trial this afternoon was going to be a very brief trial one witness and she declined to do so and  pointed out later on in the middle of trial she wanted to see the video of the the cocking she had did not have self for whatever reason so she wanted to hear this sound and she reviewed the video during trial took about five minutes according to the transcript so she had the opportunity to review that video when it was presented to her earlier and she declined to do so so it was  she did them according to the trial  and then in the written order there was a motion of defended and defended agrees that speedy is told until four twenty one fifteen so that part would not have been in a preprinted form on the motion to defend it could be a checkbox but the next sentence was increased fines he wasn't sense to a term of incarceration but getting back to your concern even if he had served his term course of provision the case isn't necessarily moot because the vehicle co