may please the court i'd like to focus primarily on issues one day and if time permits also too but i'm certainly willing to answer questions about any of the issues i'd also like to reserve three minutes for a bottle for me addressing issue one a first the admissibility of the recorded conversations between mr martin and mr panix depends on whether those conversations pertain to mr martin's pending charges for attempted murder and attempt armed robbery the state hasn't contested that mr panix was a government agent and that he deliberately elicited those statements after mr martin's right to counsel had attached on those charges the only thing that's left to find a violation of the sixth amendment is whether mr barton statements pertaining to those pending charges this precise issue was addressed in the case of people first brown in that case just as in this case the defendant made statements to a government informant that were not directed missions to the charge crimes but were admitted at trial on those crimes to show the defendant's consciousness of guilt and the co brown held that those statements pertain to those pending charges because they were relevant to show consciousness of guilt and were incriminating the statements here are indistinguishable from those in brown in both cases the defendants made statements involving in attempt to tamper with witnesses to bribe witnesses that sort of thing and the court held that those statements even though they weren't directly admissions of guilt to the charge crimes did pertain to those charged crimes brown it's indistinguishable and it's also consistent with has a right to counsel the state can't go around the defendant's attorney and obtain incriminating statements from the defendant to use a trial and those pending charges if improper ever justice quite seen one at some length that the snitch in th amendment there of course the statements taken by a professional snitch are probably less reliable than statements by someone like this in this case but there's not a role liability component to the six men are right to counsel regardless of whether the statements a liable the state has to comply with those rules all that really matters is whether or not the person who testifies about the defendant states is a government agent and here there's no dispute that when mr panix went in without wearing a wire he was working with the government so i don't think that that distinction makes a difference i also point out that the holding in brown is consistent with and supported by the holding of the united states supreme court in maine versus moulton in that case there is a slight distinction between that case in this case and that case the defendant in multan made statements that were directed missions to the charged crime and also statements that were just kind of like the ones in this case just admitted to show consciousness of guilt because they showed witnesses and the supreme court in that case simply held the defendant's statements inadmissible it didn't draw any distinction between directed missions to the charge crimes and statements that just show consciousness of guilt but they did make a distinction in maine versus  a new charge of solicitation right they could use it right and the same thing kind of applies to this case if the state were to charge mr pinnock separately in the for the bribe the time which they have those are still pending they can use these statements at that trial they just can't use them in a at the time although he said he'd only been out that night it was late at night he said he only had one beer but we know from a stipulation between the parties that his blood alcohol level at some point at the hospital after the shooting was still a point one seven more than twice the legal limit so i think we can deduce from that that he was fairly drunk at the time that this all happened which does have some bearing on his ability to identify his assailants he also tried to what he did lie about that which shows that he's maybe trying to bolster his idea maybe he doesn't think it's particularly strong i would also point out that the identifications that he made later the photo array and the lineup did have some suggestive elements that also weaken his identification in all of those identifications mr martin was either the only person or one of two people who had a very distinctive feature long braided hair the other woman and he knew the defendant all right just how much he knew the defendant he said  washington this will be wrong identified they got you the question is how well did he know the defendant basically said he'd seen him well the degree of acquaintance between two people the more the acquaintance the stronger the id and here he said you know he just seen him around the neighborhood he didn't even know his last name he never actually spent time with him so we're dealing with somebody whose name right he knew his first name and that's it i mean so he's seen him in passing a few times that you know given the other factors the fact that he was intoxicated in the fact that there were some suggestive elements to the lineup identify nations that doesn't teach his identification to sing of the stent and also when you're looking at the prejudice from the evidence supposing that the recorded statements were admissible it's not just looking at the strength of the evidence that was admissible it's also how incriminating was the evidence that was an invisible what effect of that have on the trier of fact and when a bench trial but it was a bench trial and the judge common i mean his comments were in general as in announcing his guilty verdict were brief but he did mention this evidence so we did consider it as corroboration of that and for cation so that adds to the prejudice from this one other point to make about this is that even though brown provided direct binding on point authority for the in the midst of all of the of the statements defense counsel didn't make an objection based on brown instead counsel made a far weaker objection just based on other kinds of rules that the predicate prejudicial effect outweigh the probative value given the weakness in that argument and the strength of this argument i think it's clear that counsel didn't have any valid strategic reason to not object on the basis of six and a right to counsel but based on that since that's the hope now would be that we would of the state introduced this state also introduced evidence of another shooting that martin allegedly committed a few weeks before but there were significant differences between the two shootings that made the other crime in  the instant case was an attempt armed robbery while the other crime was just a shooting that occurred from a kind of a street fight that escalated we had a different number of perpetrators in the two cases in this was an offer for proof of  identification well if probative yes but even when you're not dealing with modus operandi evidence the state still has to show that there are general similarities between the two cases in order for the other crime to be probative enough to be admitted well just people versus common which is a gun case see them people vs richardson they all versus taylor all of which are gun cases correct they all consider the similarities between the two cases and assessing how and i don't believe so because in this case we have a number of significant differences that reduce the probative value of the other crime and these are types of differences that weren't present in any of those don't i supreme court cases coleman taylor and richardson in those cases particularly richardson and taylor you have two crimes that are almost identical you have shootings that occurred during armed robberies by a single perpetrator that occurred within a few days of each other in both of those cases so distant the level of similarity between the charge crime and the other crime in  cases is far higher than here in the same applies to coleman in coleman you have one crime that occurs at a drug house two people are shot at the drug house and then defendant and another time shoots the guy who ran that drug house because of he had a motive some disagreement with that man so there was a connection between the charged crime and the other crime in coleman that isn't present in this case in the court and so that adds to the probative value of that evidence and you know may please the court the defendant i use that his sixth amendment rights were violated with the mission of the tapes even if we take away those tapes the evidence that was presented at this trial overwhelmingly establish the defendant guilt we already talked a little bit about mr panix his identification he knew the defendant from the uptown neighborhood he testified he had known him for three to five years he testified that the writing was good at the gas station where this occurred he testified that when the defendant approached him and said to me what you got he went in with pockets look for some money and then saw the gun point in his had the evidence established the defend it was an arms like the way this victim positively identified the defendant not only did he see him at the gas station this victim also immediately told the police identified him in the photo array within the week in the lineup additionally his cousin ivan virus testified that he went to visit his cousin in the hospital and at that time the victim told mr byers spencer shot me the defendant the one he identified the defendant with regard to the fact that this defendant may have been intoxicated he may have lied about that it doesn't minimize the fact that this victim or this defend this defendant how the gun to his head and attempted to shoot him additionally as just a seal recognized defendant walked away two times and tried to shoot the victim again clearly proper identification evidence not only do we have the victim's testimony we have the this case we have the testimony of mr byers mr byers and again he was in jail the defendant was also in jail and during that time they had a little bit of a relationship just because of conversations in which here the defendant emitted to mr virus that he shot the victim not only did he say i shot him he also said i should tell your money again we have clearly overwhelming evidence to establish this defendant's guilt in this case so even moving the tapes from the equation everything before when the victim was riot on december second you have his testimony what happened in february you have him seen the defendant when he went to visit his cousin in jail in august and then you have the testimony  conversations he had the defendant concerning this case in september it's the strongest piece for trying to say that  right now i'm looking at the fact of what's let's remove him from the situation and with regard to people vs brown the council relies heavily on if you look at the cases with justice quinn already acknowledged we have a serial confessor there was no other evidence to prove the defendant skill case other than mr school's testimony that's all we had and if they only had his testimony he is a jailhouse informant out of eight years he testified six times in murder confessions most of the time with the same state's attorney you also have his criminal background and you also when you review that case and you review the court's holding he had a weighty criminal history big dating back to one thousand nine hundred one and every time he didn't serve the full sentence so here the would have been a reasonable doubt and again brown was a jury case as opposed to a bench trial you have a serial confessor who had who would have been attacked based solely on if you only had a testimony and that's why they had to add the incriminating wiretap and the evidence of the to me ups and of the list of witnesses and of the by the state had nothing else in this case we had a lot of additional evidence with regard if with regard to the other kinds of events we had a gun we had the same gu the same shell casings put in the same database went back to that to find it that is certainly sufficient evidence to prove that this was the same with the other crimes evidence has probably made it as an identity of the defendant for these reasons we reports first of all the resolution of that time lapse video is not very good so we can determine just from looking at the person on the videotape that that was mr martin i would also point out that mr panix reviewed that videotape before he testified victim they could have gone brought up any disputes between the victim's version we find a half laughing shot to the video and rattling off scene well what we didn't learn from the cross and about his prior statements pinnock said had had given no less specific testimony about the exact course of events during the winter cation it was only a trial after he'd seen the video that he testified very specifically about the three different attempts going back forth where the gun jammed as for the state also mentioned the defendant's alleged admission to ivan byers would point out that that wasn't recorded and byers on his own is not a very credible witness he was facing at the time forty years in prison on federal gun and drug charges he ended up getting an awfully good deal of ten years which gave him a pretty strong motive to lie to cooperate with the state so in that respect byers this fairly similar to