to the effective assistance of counsel as attorney chose not to file a motion to suppress thirteen illegally recorded phone calls that were committed against him a trial the trial for also aired when it declined to appoint counsel to investigate mr jordan's claim that his attorney was an effective for failing to file a motion to suppress those thirteen recorded phone calls and illinois it is unlawful for either law enforcement or ordinary citizens to record phone calls unless it's both parties consent or court issue with an order only lousing the recording of those conversations federal law however only requires one party to consent that only a supreme court has created an exception to illinois strict eavesdropping law and allows recorded conversations to be admissible at trial if there was a joint investigation between federal and state authorities and if there was a joint investigation there is no not comply with the illinois eavesdropping law because mr jordan did not consent to the recording of the phone calls and there's no evidence of a court order there's also there is no joint investigation in this case because women simply department detective race back was the only officer with purported federal authority it involved in this investigation but he did not become involved in this investigation until after the recorded phone calls began detective beer bongs began defendant sells drugs to an undercover federal agent illinois courts have also found that he joined best occasion excess when a federal agent initiated the investigation or it was a joint investigation involving a multiple jurisdictional case such a his only purported involvement in this case his only purpose detective razorbacks only purpose is to get around illinois eavesdropping on the mere deputize mission of detective respect is not enough to make this a joint investigation it was testimony at trial that says that he became involved in the case on july twenty fifth that's the only evidence that we have that supports our claim but none the last that supports our claim that he didn't become involved until after the phone calls were recorded so even assuming that there was a joint investigation in this case the forty's colluded with each other to avoid illinois eavesdropping if we take this case to its logical conclusion this me and this  investigation at that point what is the purpose of illinois eavesdropping if it only takes if it only takes one deputize d d agent to get around illinois law so in this case that's what we have here we have gross what would have been surpassed is the recordings of the phone call and the transcript so the state points out that detective baird mom would then be able to testify to what he heard in those conversations at trial so but mr jordan does suffer prejudice there is prejudice in this case because the state's argument is assuming evidence that's not in the record or testimony excuse me that's not in the record the state is asking this court to assume the detective beer bombs testimony would be enough that his testimony would be her fact and that there would be no holes in it or a memory lapses however at this the detective beer bomb would be limited here for several reasons one he would be limited by his memory because it would only be what he could remember he would be further limited to testify as to what jarvis had sat under a hearsay violation so he would not be able to testify regarding what jarvis had sad and he would be limited by admissions made by those guilty admission satisfy your client that's correct your honor however jarvis has a confidential informant he hasn't he has motive motive to testify falsely so his testimony is not that credible to be anyway so the  in almost all of these cases goodman are we always dealing with or aren't we often dealing with people that have their own credibility problems we are often dealing with with individuals with their own credibility problems and that's the case here that's the problem here is that the state obviously relied on these were torn hands and are human its case because it asked the court to specifically consider the recordings and its ruling and the trial court did to not only play these recordings for the judge but it gave a written transcript and this written transcript was also used by jarvis has and detective pierpont to it too so that they could testify more clearly too as what was going on in those phone calls and jarvis has even admits that after he listened to the recordings here added some parts of the transcript so that they more accurately prophylactic what was sad that also shows that these recordings and the transcript were lived on by the court and without those recordings and transcript this mr jordan has shown that he has suffered prejudice because his attorneys failure to file a motion to suppress was object leon reasonable to the trial court comment on the recording your honor the trial court sad comment upon listening i'm listening and did your honor and i have hear that the trial court did place a lot of emphasis in essence upon when those conversations took place who participated or weren't bob just participants and then what took place immediately thereafter so the trial court did place emphasis on the recordings and if there is if you were to truck or if traffic were com to to highlight his testimony of the of his of his perception of what was going on in this case because edward jordan was denied his right for the effective assistance of counsel we would ask that this court reverse for a new trial however in the alternative at the very least i were jordan has shown that his case suffered from possible in the black to this case was reminded back to the circuit court for the circuit court to decide whether or not it should appoint counsel to further investigate mr jordan's claim this court also asked the circuit court to clarify on the record whether joint federal and state investigation existed in its attempt to clarify whether a joint investigation existed karla bar must have not remembered that those documents were already contained in the record so and furthermore the only other additional evidence that harlan farms walk to the attention of the trial  that she personally verified with bloomington police department detective gray's back that he was at that time ties dea agent however public defender carla darren's personally verifying this fact with with detective gray's back is not a legal conclusion and so the trial court in its effort to try and resolve this question was unable to do so thoroughly because because the four pages were already admitted in the cracker so at the very least mr jordan has shown that his case suffered from possible neglect and so in the alternative mr jordan asked that this court remand the case for an attorney to further investigate his claim if the court has no additional questions a suppression motion would have failed both federal federal and state agents had participated in a joint investigation the charges in this case unlawfully distributing a controlled substance is a federal offense d e a task force officers are part of the d e a s cooperation of drug enforcement efforts with local counterparts according to twenty one of the united states code section eight seven eight a five a local police officer who is also a da a task force officer has federal law enforcement powers which extend his or her jurisdiction a part of viewing the record in this clay case it's very evident that there was a joint investigation between the state and the d e a task force office finn's counsel was not an effective for deciding not to file a motion to suppress the over here recordings as this is a matter of trial strategy as counsel noted defense counsel spoke prior to trial with officer rise back but he was a dea agent she look at the testimony of kevin razorback on direct examination he was asked what his occupation was how long has he been a police officer on july twenty fifth and twenty thirteen what was your specific task on that day i was assigned a surveillance role for  money drop and if you look on cross examination which is what appellate counsel relies upon the question is officer is back so your first interaction with the case and on july twenty fifth of twenty thirteen he states yes upon solely looking at that question the state would consider how appellate counsel characterizes that however if you look back at the direct examination of the state it was what was your specific task on that day showing he likely had prior involvement with this and even with that being said if there was a federally authorized over here that he had previously authorized the trial testimony is irrelevant moreover that trial testimony was not attempting to prove whether there was in fact a da investigation it was simply ask him what he was doing on certain days if there was more specific questions going towards whether you was in the da i'm sure he would have been much more straightfor cooperate i think from my point of view he that issue was never even determined below so this court remanded obviously for clarification purposes and the trial court did find after seeing the several exhibits and defense counsel's testimony that she personally verify this information prior to that it was irrelevant as to the specific days regarding his involvement and again looking at the trial as a way of saying he was involved participate yes around but that's kind of inferring that that's what those things me yes and that's why i'm pointing towards the trial testimony not actually going towards the fact whether he was and the was that specific hearing below it what if any of this would have been proven and it was unfortunate that the state the not offer some federal stamp of approval order showing that he was  hey case number i'm not going to read it out whatever you have us you get what i'm stating and i read the cases that appellate counsel relies on to try to prove what is sufficient to show that there is a join investigation and that there is nothing in those cases that hurt the state's position in this case those cases dealt much more with that issue directly whereas here as i stated it wasn't raised below and on  based upon the discovery that the defense exhibit one evidence as well as defense counsel's own statements that he was a dea agent and that it was not some disputed issue  now we go towards the assumption that alternative argument of whether that motion to suppress was granted as i believe justice turner noted and as the state set forth in support and its brief beer mom could still have testified regarding the speaker phone conversation that he listened to and even if he couldn't testify to that as your honor noted again you had the confidential informant who could testify as to what occurred and even if he was not allowed to testify for whatever reason and the state's brief on page eighty nine it sets forth all of the other evidence that does not include beer bongs testimony or the informants testimony clearly in this case the evidence was overwhelming the decision of trial counsel to not follow a motion to suppress was trial strategy even assuming that if the motions to specify the be granted the outcome would not have been different and as a result made yet not so much a strategy but i'm not going to spend time yes you're exactly as a result in this case the evidence was overwhelming against defendant he cannot show prejudice and the sport should affirm that they will be brief the second issue regarding franklin inquiry based on my three years as an appellate prosecutor this is one of the most intense and intricately examined crinkle inquiry i've witnessed and i've done a handful of these cases the transcript is over thirty pages the trial court reads the defendants the wider issue by issue i think there are five separate issues he asked when it is this what you meant to raise the defendant says yes the defendant extrapolates upon that then the trial court says ok let's go on to the next issue every issue that was in this water was examined in the trial court properly determined that these all whacked merit there was no assistance found they were legally immaterial and that no further action was needed regarding appointing new counsel and for these reasons the state would request this for to affirm and if there's no further questions the state the seem like a police report that was admitted so it's not entirely clear why however it is clear that those four additional documents or the four documents were submitted at the crinkle remain and were already contained within the record so kidnapping investigation which are traditionally federal investigations or where a federal agent actually initiated the investigation and this case detective raced back testified that he was a blooming simply superman officer all seven law enforcement officers that in a trial in this case or bloomington police department officers all of the witnesses that were disclosed to mr jordan's counsel prior to trial were either bloomington police department officers or illinois state police employees limited based on his memory and hearsay exceptions but for those reasons we