the first set of ears in this case the photographs and the testimony asserting that the complainant was me to reenact the alleged crimes out of court which tonight our client a fair trial was the reason and there the because the whole thing is inadmissible it should never have been it in it is in evidence detective testified that it was the civil attorneys that had come to the police investigation which is rather unorthodox to say the least and that they wanted to go back and visit the seeing how do you mention the shovel turning here how about what was a medical student or something like that what we have everybody in  neighborhood yeah it's here is strange they were all here on q with all their ducks in a row it was very strange kind of investigation and and the detective spent over backwards to accommodate that which find maybe but it's not admissible evidence it has no purpose and it that relevant that there is no relevance it violates two rules of evidence the first one is that what happened is is she's testifying to all the many ways out of court that she is reenact g the alleged crimes that constitute the charges and she's graphically going to reach photographs showing what she did and specifically testifying over objection that she is and the prosecutors are prompting her that she's saying what our client she's alleging what our client had done to her which is clearly inadmissible prior consistent statements the rule is clear that they knew that the tires the character she witnesses on points that they are again for no absolute reason other than to make them look bad so were well i've never seen this happen i mean the the trial judge disbelieves our witnesses that testified that she attempted to bribe that the police department and don't believe or then ever go it's somewhat of a simple analysis that it's reversible error and it it it that they were insinuating and it was hearsay there was also hearsay it was coming in for the truth of who was talking of of of who was calling the shots of what was said out of court for the truth that yes indeed she reacted these crimes for to the satisfaction of state and violating that evidence roll and then violating another evidence rule your honour's that which compounded  detectives over objection what part of sex did you not understand which was obviously rhetorical so it was best to ring could ability and and  honour's is not if you do have to reach those issues because it does it does determine right what charges he can be retried on cell so even though yes it is dispositive of the end of the greater crimes to confrontation the client refused to consider any of the complainants activities inconsistent statements on her activities not include it preclude it for two reasons but the main one here in small death and and it cannot preclude motive in a case like this because it's relevant to show motive and that's right out of the sandbox case which is the prostituting it's not so much that she is a prostitute but that she was hustling that night and it's it's shows motive in this case because it shows that she was hustling and looking for money in this case which without evidence we don't know that except for the one fact that was disputed unfortunately by the complaining witness that detective stated it testified to which is what that that she a human in the complainant attempted to bribe the police department so it was relevant to hugh to show that she was that she was coming at him that she was hassling him and that she was doing that all along and it was also relevant and that's the and then the other one is that it's her m all basically the complainants and all the same night it was the same location it was the same gas station and and she was the theory being that we needed to substantiate and not just raise that she was hustling him out of la it wasn't just at the police department was all along and she had a motive to transform what was a consensual sexual act into a crime to make to make money and we were precluded from doing all of was one statement that she was hustling at the gas station and meeting marcus the two after after which she encountered the our client which is the implication being that she was hustling at the time that she encountered client there was another statement to the lead detective that she went out at one o'clock trying to hustle the gas station that was once a detective the state that she was out walking trying to hustle which is important too because there was no mention of time in there experience is that she was hustling basically the whole night on and off all night and then she does active bell which is that she was that she was hustling when she met our client when she went out to get cigarettes at ten o'clock and three of those four those are right and it's also important to your honor is to read it if it's clear when it's ready conjunction with the pretrial because when you do that you can see that that other point to one that was it is highly reliable evidence and she denies it but some of it was under oath and so her denials just accentuate the reason why we needed to perfect our impeachment of cross examination so  that for the issue of motive if you if you don't know well there's two things actually the first is if you don't know right she's actually doing then you don't have the financial motivation and all those other comings and goings for a knock us or unconsidered reasons don't show any monetary or any any hustlin they just don't and and all of those were excluded the second thing is we were we were precluded from showing those coming goings because they were related to hustling so the whole thing was kept out and we're not allowed show that that she left the house at eleven thirty two to get the last call for alcohol or that she left to go on the bus stop or that she was having sex with her drug  the porch and so we were not even allowed to do those things but we needed the hustlin because the house name is the only thing that would show the motive and was also necessary to to show that what she was doing so we could fit it into the timeline that was still crucial in this case and and two we needed to do that because because the complaining witness the five or six times and so without you know without being able to say what the whole night was really about that that's correct it's about the secret yass it just came down on january thirty first and we just saw it this morning it doesn't it's distinguishable because basically there was an infant in that case and the the one of the things that the supreme court said was that infant was not able to cry out and therefore that there was the secrecy in the confinement was secret worse our case we have an adult and she was able to cry out so even though we did cite it in the reply brief we still have a other position to issue number five which is the insufficiency of the avon's to sustain a conviction we are mindful of the standard of review but the deficiencies and in this which turns out never existed and ascribing the police up a police officer back to her apartment and into her bedroom under the pretense that she was going to give him an id when no one would think that a forty year old pedestrian who's not driving a car would be needing a driver's license and was under thirty and out after curfew and even though she says she has kept hearing lying to me on the dresser we have a scene of the alleged offenses occurring with several generations of family members in the next room without a peep or an outcry and the complaining the complainant attempting to hide her name their names we have the changing of not clear manipulation of the time factor five or six times that she was giving over a period of up an eight hour time span to put our client on yes that's correct mr wood there was two charges actually there was an aggravated it was reduced to kidnapping and the other one merchants cracked that's crack so this one remaining and that's the one with four years so i think you argue that the kidnapping was in here in the sexual assault  inherent is really not necessary i mean i think i was probably buried in the analysis because it's based on the fact that the elements were not were not met and then of what was happening here that she would mean nobody and that she would ask for him back to the apartment and and and that she knew that you don't need an i d for cigarettes so she would certainly have knew that that she didn't have to go along with him shows again that it was consensual and and finally on this point this is a case where there is no reason to disbelieve the detectives who testified not only that the complainant attempted to bribe the police department  nothing absolutely nothing he he he went with he he started out with the complaining witness and he said that that that he was holding her to the same standard that he was holding our client to even though she was a drug addict at the time of the incident and at the time of trial and i witness says i had a client and our witnesses none of them were drug addicts and and he and so he views that incorrect standard and that also the other reason he found a client guilty which is with was that he i mean there were several pieces of evidence in the state of that besides the reporting to the supervisor but that was he said there was still was crime gratian where there mistakenly found that she that she had a working relationship with with our client and she didn't so so in the end then the most illogical one after that which really should be enough to show that this tin cannot stand to see how old he put a burden and a logical burden on a witness detective the state has to have a rested the complainant for bribery as a twisted reason for finding our client guilty so this binding cannot stand there was it it was illogical and it was not supported by the by the evidence  on well it was just an inconsistent statements on then then better that it was bizarre because the inconsistent statements were precluded we were not allowed to impeach her on the on the hustling and we were able to bring out that you know the side of going to the liquor store and that one why was she doing nat in that she was hiding the condom and she was using that as a negotiating chip but we were really precluded from doing that so she did tell multiple stories she did it on a rock on she would say one thing i want to make clear from the outset as to defendants first issue the admissibility of those photographs was never objected to the relevance of those photographs was never objected to not prior to trial not during the trial not after the trial they were not mentioned in the post trial motion they did come up in the argument in the post trial motion but only as it related to the sufficiency of the evidence overall so be a defendant never idea that they were not relevant and effect they never really argued that think that there shouldn't be any evidence at all and what this does is this means that we no longer are dealing with a reversible error question we're dealing with the question plain and it's the defendant's obligation to demonstrate to this court at the evidence in this case is closely balance closely balanced to the point where we could have an innocent person being sent to prison something he didn't do because of this  alone i don't think we can we can we can say that any allegation of air rises to that level first of all i disclose to several issues that defendant raised that have been forfeited the evidence simply isn't closely balanced yes we do have a very imperfect witness but the judge found her testimony believe it will and the judge is the i never heard of the credibility and there is nothing in the record that he that one can point to which makes stick terminations of credibility of this witness improper is a matter of law or invalid as a matter of law the judge also considered the testimony of the defendant and found it so unreasonable that it was p should the fact the first objection was not to the photograph but that photographs speak for themselves ok so we're not talking about the relevance of the photographs admissibility photographs but some of the testimony some of the questions particularly the form of the question or there was one question as to who was ideal resit to do their reenactment and there was an objection and our counsel the state's attorney was true to question i think it unnecessarily got into the proper question but claims that they were offered to bestir the witnesses to the victim's testimony as to how the crime occurred that was not the purpose for these case these photographs to come in they were the trigger it by the people to document how the investigation occurred so as a result they were contemporaneous photographs they were taken to document what was happening at that time not a reenactment of something that had happened before but this is how the investigation unfolded and the reason that this and it may not have been relevant he mediately but it became relevant when the defendant clad these two detectives to testify on his behalf and these detectives gave testimony which was specifically  detective the status testimony and bad as ride the integrity of this investigation as to these two detectives is so important because they hate their think their testimony the state is in particular played it to the defendant as so offered her five thousand dollars and that the detective testified that missoni told her that this would go away for five thousand dollars or would you say every answer my question would have been different if she had been the one that what if the record showed that the victim solicit a five thousand about dollars bribe to make this go away then the yeah the case gets very uncomfortable but that's not what the evidence shows consent defense and that is what the defend it was able to get it i mean use able to testify that they had a prior sexual relationship and that was evidence of her consent the second exception he had to defend is allowed to allege prior sexual activity for her to falsely charge him now what does this mean the defendant cannot point to anything in the evidence that would give her a motive to sue him very forthright about this that she was a crack addict that she needed a certain amount of of rocks every i think she smoked every other day and backed she needed a certain amount of dollars to do this and she knew there were a truck dollars and cents finally the law says the filing of a lawsuit is a motive the lawsuit is a motive no question about it she needed money here's a way to do it faster you can use a police officer to sue the city for all sorts of big bucks the judge heard about that he knew there was a lawsuit he knew about the depositions he detected flippy act was i able to testify that she told him that she had no other source of income he was not allowed to talk about what that source was defendant was able to any other person in this case does not impact upon the question of whether she had consensual sex with the defendant or whether or not it was for simple forcible rape court to look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to him and like least favorable to the people that's the way her brief seems to be written the issues of credibility issues of evidence and must be resolved in favor of the people that's what like most favorable people means all of those in consistencies all of the inferences must evolve in favor of the people the question of credibility as who to believe and who not to believe that's a ship that has sailed but has left left the harbor the objective evidence supports her story the timeline demonstrates that she caught that she calls her pusher on her cell phone the cell phone records shows are five twenty five twenty seven seconds and she stated that she she called the pusher she waited for him she got the drugs but decided not to smoke them until she went and got severe cigarettes the defendant was out of touch with his department based upon his profile date of terminal from five fifty eight thirty four to six twenty three zero nine so that would indicate he met up with her about half an hour after she acquired her drugs and then was out of touch with his department for about twenty four and a half minutes that's that's a perfectly the trial yet it's any she did give different times no question about it but she stated in her testimony that she wasn't looking at a clock and she also stated that she was smoking crack cocaine through the let you know the early morning hours so her tell time at this point is probably somewhat suspect that's why it is important to look at the so no phone records that is an objective indication she stated that she encountered the police officer after the last call to the to the pusher and the last call to it's all released and half an hour later the defendant goes off here for almost half an hour for about twenty five minutes ok that's what's important it's the sequence and timing of these of these times that's what for him and they're sharing this yeah yeah she does he go ahead we don't we have an exact time as to when that came in we have a better estimate which could be off right by quite a bit we don't know i mean because it is just an estimate there was a question about what was she doing for class and that's a question that was asked her in the civil deposition and she went on to answer and i believe her answer was yes something happened if work like and she wanted to describe the alleged  rape incident with the defendant now they try to get that again as substantive evidence and the court's ruling again i'm going to read it right and you tell me what it means sometime around four o'clock and then went on to answer questions about that event being stopped by sergeant i know what is going on so for the limited purpose of establishing a chance of the question rendition about being stopped on the street the question being put to her about sometime around four o'clock would be around that's the ruling the court made was that lead in was it let in for a limited purpose i cannot tell i've been doing this a long time so can you clarify i can't clear if i want to judge meant by that let me say this i think the judge was giving the defense counsel benefit of the doubt that as if there's any relevance to that testimony he would consider it for any purpose i also think that in light of the fact that the defendant was not confronted with any of these statements during a cross examination that one where the proper foundation was laid she was not asked did you get you know asked for us these questions if you give these answers defendant has to be allowed the victim has to be i also think that these statements have very little in the way of probative value for the substance so even if a statement was kept out it doesn't really hurt the defendant because it doesn't make him any would given that the judge let it in he gave it whatever probative value or impeachment value he thought was appropriate all right again it's a risk of repeating myself the church is the arbiter of the credibility he's the fact frank and the court this court has to be prepared to rule that he is wrong has a matter of law that that you would have ruled the other way but that he is wrong as a matter of law fact that the evidence does not take statutes which are the basis for the counts that this court asked for supplemental brief you know it was designed to reach those situations or affected officer or employee has in some way exploited his official position to the detriment of the public good i think one thing that we can all agree on here is that this officer exploited his office his official position to the detriment of the public good question is the loss that he noticed the rules that he was accused of violating a law is for the purpose of the stature the one thing that we have first of all the people versus karma see to williams the supreme court did not back away or did not abandon its previous holdings and the appellate court review holdings that rules and regulations can be a basis for any official misconduct prosecution but it does say is that these the rules have to be properly promulgated that it's has to be more than somebody writing on a set of rules and disseminating them to the department and what we have in this case which i submitted to the court in order or supplement we have two statutes one of which gives the police force the power to write the rules and regulations the second one to dash an eighty four dash to two zero general duties this is the morning quote this is it an organ of city of chicago the members of the police force of the city when on duty shall devote their time and attention to the discharge of the duties of their stations according to the laws of the state and the organs of the city and the rules and regulations of the department to preserve order peace and quiet and enforce the laws and ordinances throughout the city and let this burden studs is it confers upon the the members of the department a legal obligation a matter of law that they must be a baby the rules and regulations of their department this makes the rules and regulations properly promulgated they have been subjected to and approved by the proper legislative body that's the big flaw in karma c libs that now know what happens with their trial is any it was a problem this is not a trial issue kharma see to william said that before you reach the issue of reasonable doubt you have to solve the question the court gets a reviewing court has to solve the question of whether that the people do not have an obligation to prove to the fact finder the the legislative process but me says that in this in this rule isn't that williams no i don't think so i think because williams williams states that before you reach reasonable doubt you have to answer this question this is a law question it's not a fact question once we once  considering the sufficiency of the evidence we must first determine whether the confidential rules are left with an immediate official misconduct statute that makes it a question of law for this court i don't think we have to reinvent the wheel for the purpose of a jury or a s that's one way of doing it i don't think it's absolutely no i don't think it i don't think william states that it has to be submitted to the fact finder they may i think it's reasonable to look at and say the question is open because they said that even if the people submissions were taken as true they didn't amount to true what enough to show it's proper promulgated but this court can take notice of the ordinance and this and that premised on d excuse me the official misconduct premised on a yes that is a double enhancement so we would have to demonstrate that one of the other convictions for criminal sexual assault scuse me for official fact that they were committed during the commission of the official misconduct the official misconduct that are the basis of those are the real violations of of the department not the the aggravated criminal sexual assault statute itself ok so what we have here is that we back up and that gave you a clear present a clear picture we have a chicago police officer badge on his chest gun on his hip in an official car takes a woman off the street essentially put you're under arrest order her going to work his car takes her to his house her house and a sasser repeatedly he did this clearly in violation of both of the risk of his department and the the criminal ordinance criminal law statutes for sexual assault if this isn't criminal sexual assault if he's not on notice that official misconduct then if a statute kind of loses all meaning all right this is an officer who used his his office to commit this offense know this is not a woman being dragged off the street by some thug this is a chicago police sergeant who used his office to commit this offense ok and that's what is aggravating about this case that's what raises this from class want to class x that it was done by a police officer on duty committing the crime of official misconduct committing acts that he knew by law were forbidden by law ok because when he took this woman into her his car he did so with the intent of the criminal sexual assault but he took her up into a room apartment he did so with the intent of criminal sexual assault he failed to to properly supervised his teen because he was committing some criminal sexual assault you cannot separate these out the indictment must be taken as a whole and all of the counts must be read as a whole and what you have here is a complete narrative of a chicago police officer abusing his office in the worst way imaginable and that's what makes this court this case so so serious and that's what makes these crimes these days counts of official misconduct so serious i we have proven our case beyond a reasonable doubt to the effect finder that there was no doubt in his thank you the state and the court the court asked in the state on the practices in statements and the hearsay and the smear smear campaign against our witnesses asked how is this relevant how is the investigation relevant and said that it was relevant well it's not relevant besides being hearsay in besides being a part consistency that it's it was not tied to them and it's one thing to say that investigation is relevant when you are you meaning the opposing party is accusing the other side of botching the investigation of concealing evidence or missing a piece of evidence like they did something wrong but this was a question of a different color this was all about the complainants complainants feelings that she was hurt in a million and the state's attempt and efforts to prove that are feelings were justified because our detective court and there's nothing ever presented here but the municipal current that he cited which is the identical problem that the supreme court faced with the glenwood police department to say that the m chief which is his discretion to make rules for all kinds of things trivial things things about office and gossip and rumor and what you do with the right across there and and and and in reams case it wasn't trivial it was a very serious it was drug peddling so it was the same situation in this case to answer your question no there was no problem creation and there was no adoption and this case is no different than williams to all they testified to was for the limited purpose that there was a nail on the door to show the consent that no one would know about had a lock that door unless you've been there before which has nothing to do with reenacting the crimes as before that through the limited purpose denying the telling the excuse me exposing the the unauthorized purchase of a beer by the by the complaining witness that she wanted a beer so that was one of the purposes and  to that the complaining witness had yes indeed attempted to bribe the police department which the trial judge found was a significant major piece of evidence and if he had believed our witness he would have found our client not guilty on the issue braver on this issue there were numerous objections to this testimony the photographs and the testimony are inextricably bound wendy objections that is the exact same theory they were arguing on appeal that hearsay is also included in that because when you're discussing description of what's in the photographs you're certainly talking back here say what was said and what was not said brainiac that was mentioned of course in in at the post trial and the judge did rely on the enactment so that really should be the end of the inquiry but we did also talk about the nature of the evidence all we needed to show was that it was closely balanced and i this which is clearly a sidebar and clearly a side show and then and it was inflammatory and then the judge relied on so it it fits twenty near under any of the categories and there were numerous objections and she told him no so we should have been allowed to impeach or that she was prostituting that she was hustling and their affair was more likely to be hustling with him and motivated to as a disgruntled person who didn't get paid because our client testified that he did not pay her beyond cigarettes and he testified that it was a sex buddy arrangement which honors is a euphemism for being a prostitute and she felt bound by the judge's ruling that he could not say that she was prostituting that night because he wasn't allowed to say it so the exclusion of this evidence would have been was crucial to this is not about the right to a fair trial to show wright was happy this was consensual motive to to extort it is not just in the need for money it is it is the acting on the need for money this isn't just someone that that needed money as crack addicts do and the judge heard that evidence that's correct he's right about that but he didn't hear and he didn't entertain that she was going beyond just need money that she was rooming in able to act on that and that was what was excluded in that tonight's a severe trial on the on the timeline the this is going to the sufficiency of the evidence first of all the state applies to run standard of law on appeal we realize that the standard is difficult or that is that is but it is not as a matter of law it is whether it is so on reasonable and improbable that achaia of that a tray or factor that this court can no longer be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of of of his skills and and to to apply that at this moment when the state says well ok we admit that he that she or he's he's i in all due respect trying to wiggle out of the times that she was giving the floor clock time which is in the deposition and that's when it occurred it couldn't have happened at five twenty seven number one this one from the time that she was giving she was not getting the five twenty seven time in which she gives the five twenty seven time as your explodes and bad if you look at that timeline it is impossible to have committed the time between six to six twenty three if you look at at the five twenty seven she she needed to to get her second or third or fourth stash of cocaine she needed to she needed to start to smoke it then she noticed the missing booze and the cigarettes this all takes time pension need to encounter my client on the street and have three rakes in this apartment then she needs to cry like a bitch and unquote for an hour or two then she has to salvage and preserve the condom in the towel less then she has to be i contact and retain her attorneys because three could not possibly have just recklessly appeared with medical student and hammers she had to have done all that and so right right at the station it could not have happened by twenties it could not have happened after that there wasn't either it would have been too morally would have been too late and there was no way that that could have happened five twenty seven which is the time that she didn't even read it didn't give and finally to answer your honor's question about what the meaning of that ruling was on the the depositions the judge the roman history believed that he that the complainant would need to be confronted with her testimony and that is not the law for ross says that when it's under oath there is no confrontation requirement so that's what happened there so he did not realize it was coming in for substantive evidence and not impeachment and that was and that's why i believe he made the muddled confusing grueling that he