thirteenth two thousand and thirteen he was chatting with a group of women on stanley street in peoria that he had just met a great result makers he was armed with a handgun because it was an unsafe area peoria while he was chatting with these white men in unknown man whom you later learned was not the sanders came over and punched williams in the face without provocation williams feared an attack by another man in the group and you pull this gun out and put it at the side sanders also pulled his jacket decided showed his gun and said oh we got those till someone intervene and williams left eight days later on september twenty again ended up near stanley street and he saw a group of people outside but they were in front of a different house from the house where he had been punched the week before while walking past a group he heard of a familiar voice say what's that he turned inside the sanders reaching into his coat pocket and williams thought that sanders is going to pull a gun on him so williams shot him first defense counsel argued that williams was entitle fans journey instruction and the court refused the court did not believe williams versions of events and disallowed self defense instruction the court however did allow an instruction on second degree murder based on reasonable believe in self defense the court also refused to allow injury to hear evidence that a handgun was found on sanders the court erred in not allowing williams self defense instruction because ten struction to be given the evidence does not have to be consistent with other evidence that a trial so long as it is capable of being believed the court in people versus here is said that if the evidence under reasonable belief or self defense is contradicted by other evidence and might not be by the jury that quote the defendant's credibility as a matter for the jury to resolve here williams encountered a man who had punched him in the face for no reason eight days prior who was armed eight days prior and who appeared to be pulling out a gun in fact sanders didn't have a gun this version of events was certainly believable it was for the jury and not the judge to make the final determination of williams's credibility several courts have found that even under reasonable if he instruction on  reasonable self defense is given then the perfect something by this instruction must be given to you it is for the jury to decide whether that only if as reason all or unbelievable but the instruction should both be given the jury should have been allowed to contemplate williams complete theory of defense in the trial judge erik refused to instruct the jury on self defense it was reversible error for the court to exclude evidence that sanders had a gun on him the night he died because it was relevant to corroborate williams's testimony that sanders hadn't gotten the previous week the jury did not hear all the evidence in williams's case and if it had there was a reasonable probability that there would have been a different outcome had the jury known that sanders had a gun on him that night on september twenty first they were more likely to find that williams's testimony about the events on september thirteenth in which sanders showed a gun to him was true and only rules of evidence permit the admission of any relevant evidence the police found a handgun in sanders pants this evidence is certainly relevant for two reasons why and because williams feared sinner's had a guy on any dead until the jury is more likely to believe in williams's testimony that sanders had a gun the previous week and therefore reasonably believed that sanders was pulling a gun on him immediately before williams shot sanders the court refused to allow in the evidence of the gun because it was not in sanders jacket pocket it was in allowed in was quote whether the dentist saw it or whether there were furtive movements or indicators that it was about to be used things like that i don't know that the facts show that here other than the defendant saying he had his hand in his he feared the sanders hadn't gotten any dead the gun evidence would have supported williams testimony regarding september thirteenth which was the initial alter keisha sanders  testified that sanders did not show a gun to williams but sanders was carrying a gun on stanley street which is a rough neighborhood on september twenty first then it was reasonable all to believe that he also had a gun on september thirteenth williams was afraid when he heard sanders voice because he knew that scene was violent and he knew that sanders first at least suspected that sanders had a gun the jury did not get the entire picture williams had a right to present his complete theory of the case and it was a question for the jury to decide whether this was self defense and whether it was reasonable because williams did not get to present a complete defense he was denied his right to a fair trial because of the errors described here and in the brief cortez williams respectfully request that this honorable court reverses identification he found something he had under the pants he couldn't even see it under the pants and then he found it where is defense testimony and again the testimony was inconsistent with the statement that he used the police earlier his testimony in that  that he was the one that came back in this area he admits that it's the same block now in his statement he even admitted that he knew it was the same house and it he even says that he just saw the victim standing there with one hand on a bottle of liquor the other hand in his coat pocket on this and that this was kind of the flip and that is the self defense instruction wasn't given and the second degree murder instruction was just like this case but in that case the jurors found that the second even in his testimony that he was the one that first pulling on the week before defendant said that he pulled the gun after the victim punched him and the victim just showed him the butt of the gun in his ways lining up in a defendant's testimony the victim didn't even claim self defense with he admitted he went back to the same house and he admitted emptying his gun after the victim decide what's up and he had met or that he was enough to get anyone other than the picked on which would mean that he was up to get that he didn't stand in his interview that he saw the victim had a hand in his pocket he didn't state in the interview that he thought the victim was to me a gun out of his jacket pocket and he didn't state in the interview that meant temperature of a gun the week before moreover that the gun found on the victim's deceased body under his hands after the cop with the officer researching brain and patient wouldn't have changed anything either as he didn't show that his fear that the victim was taking a gun out of wildly disproportionate to what what he experienced because he the shocks even the trajectory some are from front to back some are from back to front so it shows it's consistent with then i'm himself coming back in this area expecting to him to encounter the person account of the reason for basically looking for him that he intended to to kill him not just feared that he needed to defend us on the follow up at the point that you made that i wasn't aware of away there was testimony that even after he fell he stood over and shot at him so honest just a few things that i want to touch on this for is that state's argument that the because the jury was given second degree instruction and did not find the second degree and instead give the murder verdict the court in people versus harris as is trying to explain this much better than i probably could they say that there are several reasons why it cannot be assumed that the verdict of murder indicates that the jury did not find it on reasonable belief they go through the instructions under these instructions of the jury found that the defendant intended to kill the disease and didn't kill him but had a reasonable belief that deadly force was justified there offered no alternative but to find the defendant guilty of murder so that is on one way to account for how this jury verdict came down but had the gun evidence come in and it for sure would have made a difference probably and that's at least in the second degree verdict had they known that he got the disease did he have his gun they would have the least understood why williams corner yes the self defense should have been given as almost as a matter of course because they are all get nation will be given one is given the other should have been getting something guy and evidence is really what would have made the biggest difference in this case it should have been given that jury should have gotten the full picture and it should have been there to decide what was credible and whether this self defense was reasonable or on reasonable own one last point was that the at the testimony the very testimony in this case that the other witnesses were very close relatives of the deceit and in this case so whether there