take it and do that but i'm saying we're more interested in the first argument yeah other two arguments we know the law and we're not finding much of value  it was you had the crime allegedly committed by an african american defendant where there were four white police officers who testified against the state only used district three charges to challenge african american churches they used to to challenge african american jurors were the jury that was up for the jury of twelve and another alternate juror was also a swiss who was african american now defense counsel raised neutral reasons for the strikes the trial court provided it's a real reasons for the strikes law that the trial court did the trial court provide race neutral reason it was or was the trial court addressing whether there does the judge get by on the next hill ok does not hear that the cheeky in the state or defense counsel an opportunity to do anything she just kind of took s yeah and dating so i think could be a good jury which i'm not exactly sure right how she was able to glean that from her statements were still only questions she asked when she said she was a grandmother she  against this offense well it had at least two african american victims who went to the hospital two yes right that's i don't think that this early negates the idea though that you have import witnesses who were and victims who were right in there so this is across racial dangerous crime which is a very important factor in looking at bats and challenge so i think that this was a state to provide any restriction reasons it once again says you know i've made a record i think that it's you know basically exhibits the misunderstanding the chopper really it's not up to the trial court to make the record of why these african american jurors were struck it's up to the trial due to the state's attorney to make the record so that your honor is a review of the court can make sure that there's not been discrimination and to use a printer a challenge  and i think if you look at you know they didn't exclude any white jurors with their printer jobs state it was only used to suit african american churches and the use of these appropriate charges decreased the percentage of  actors on the on the jury and so therefore i think that because this was a completely improper batson hearing where the trial court rather than the state provided the race neutral reasons i think this the scotus needs to be she find that somewhat problematic i don't know that that i mean it's just trial court understood at least in some cases that the party who's been accused of using proper ch purpose that person is there to be interviewed for exactly right your honor and i think if you look at people the specially when they discuss you know whether the is from the point of view with the correct believe that a statement that their brothers but maybe the jury will think there's something other brother i mean on the indictment together he says my brother did i think that that's very clear to the jury who is talking about but getting back to  he was in trouble for hitting an officer and he says no don't pre heat my brother did that's exactly the type of statement that is you know i declare a believe could be used against the defendant but unfortunately that isn't and that defendant isn't present when that state is made and is not involved point directly so the purpose the officers are gun at the time the statement was made by hall's i'm not sure i believe i don't know if there's any direct testimony of exactly what time the shaka was covered up there were guns recovered in the alley i believe yes your honor because it was recovered but once again i think that just makes clear whether their gun was recovered or not mr wells is telling officers don't blame me blame my brother so i think that manifest weight of the evidence although defendant argues today that this was an interracial crime they are was never brought up a trial that was not one of the relevant circumstances that he brought forth in order to substantiate his facts and motion on appeal he does argue that and we would state that this is not an interracial crime defendant seems to forget that he and his cohorts went out to shoot gangster disciples they were shooting at  man and not white man and defendant at mit's in his statement to the assistant state's attorney i believe it's a supplemental record page two forty nine that he didn't know who he was shooting at if it was whites or blacks and as your honour's pointed out the only people that were actual victims of the shootings the ones that were hurt were submit and belak all of sustain life threatening and injuries and they were both black and so was codefendant  wells who was injured the only injury that a kurd to one of the officers was officer ryan and he apparently had a wound in his hand from a pellet from the shotgun so we would argue that this is not an interracial crime there is no relevant jurors speak at the water here she knew what the relevant circumstances were certainly under batson she's a judge that's presume to know the law and those relevant circumstances are not limited to the six or seven that are finding or the record and specify to the state him to the us to make the specific record or did she make her own record and not allow them to do anything well what she did was she stated that she based on the record believe that there was no reason for it the state to go any further she stated why she thought the state had not  attorney no your honor i don't believe that's the way the record reads it actually says that diane de hart was a young lady and in the motion for new trial judge lampkin makes clear that she found that there was no pattern of exclusion she states on the record i actually said if there was a pattern it was certainly more evident with counsel trying to strike off white people and she made the statement even though it may not have been as clear as any reviewing court would like it certainly was clear in the judge's statement on the record that she found no i'm afraid she case will were was there any articulation as to the third jersey often of your the alternate your version as we would argue that any discussion or argument regarding the alternate is completely waived there is no statement on the record by anyone as to what the braces were of those alternate jurors and in fact that becomes very important here because ashley pace and was a female white sure who was selected where there were six whites on the jury three hispanics one indian and two blacks on the initial jury but then when the trial started a paysan was nowhere to be found and they substituted ingrown who was the first alternate and it was never any statement on the record as to what race she was the only statement that was made was that during the denise o'neal was african american and defense says in their grief that it's unlikely that any other alternate jurors were black however that's not the law we can't presume assume whether any of those jurors were in fact black and it was the defense's burden to preserve that record and they did not so we would argue that that entire argument is waived regardless even if we were to look at those numbers again argument is the same no prime aphasia case was established the relevant circumstances that this court and other courts review along with judge slam against decision is certainly not against the manifest way that the evidence and in fact as i stated in the motion for new trial she made very clear and defense counsel made very clear as to what his decision was when choosing this jury and not to say what's good for the goose is good for the gander but it cannot be forgotten that this defen faces that say we're the the allegations concerning the conduct for his conduct of the court it's of the noble standard of the case that say that there are cases your honor but based on this record and what judge land can was reviewing in terms of the deer and the testimony at this trial the statements made we would stand on our brief that it is an abuse of discretion based on judge lamp and the second issue if you're referring to there but th there was there were two challenges that were made they were in fact two against african americans but numbers can be skewed any which way you want to there were two that see it on the jury so there is fifty percent of the african americans were in fact seated on the jury the stage that's another factor in the foreign official analysis absolutely all of those factors were taken into consideration we have to and we are allowed to pursue and that that the judge does know the law and that she was certainly aware of batson and she was quite aware on the defense side too as she was ruling on are reversed the acts and motions and she made it very clear she and back gave the defendant every benefit of the doubt even after he said that he was excluding two white men because they lived in the southwest suburbs and everyone out there were racist she allowed those men to be peremptory challenge and not put defendant in a situation where he would be forced to take what he considered to be racists men that he stated on the record were racist to beasts serving on his jury so i think it's clear from this record that judge lampkin indeed knew the law knew that there was official case and knew that there was no reason for the state to give race neutral reasons as to the other issue regarding judge lampoons decisions and her statements that she made i'm not sure if the court wan anything about that but i would say that anything that judge lampton did state on the record was in direct as a as a direct result of what was stated by defense counsel and all of of the defense or the state yes your honor i agree that they were not race neutral reasons she may not have stated it exactly the way again any reviewing court would like the judge to state it but there does not mean that the defendant is deserving of any relief she looked at all of the relevant circumstances and the circumstances that she stated on the record were again simply part of the relevant circumstances she's not limited to a set number and batson it says that you know you look at the relevance or consensus they include but are not limited to in the united states supreme court make clear that they are confident that these judges can tell a true case of discrimination from a false one and i would state and the people would state that judge lane can indeed know that the assistant state's attorneys in this case for not racially discriminating and that there was no in that does not allow you to view the credibility or the way like i said that everything in court would would like to if you feel for whatever reason those are reasons but we're stating our interpretation of this record is that the judge knew precisely what she was doing and that she found based on what she said that that was simply part of the prime official case and you can view that and determine whether or not for finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence and we would state that it is good morning your honour's on in the remaining time i'd like to address the trial or that and it is raising before i get into the substance of it there's a couple of misrepresentations i believe that are before the court based on counsel's argument chill a paramedic transport could take codefendant to the hospital another officer approached officer may and in the presence of willie wells the two officers had a conversation so this was a spontaneous  spontaneous utterance it fits completely squarely into that hearsay exception now the other thing that defendant said that i believe some misrepresentation is a legal misrepresentation crawford absolutely does not stand for the proposition that as statements to police officers are categorical here categorical testimonial statements that's in fact refuted by the subsequent case of de this there there was of course an entire conversation with the nine one one dispatcher who is an agent of the police and there was questioning in that case and what davis indicated was that those circumstances did not indicate that the statements made were testimonial in nature the other thing the defendant said about crawford that i believe also is a is a misstatement of that case is that all statements about people committing a crime are testimony one of course again that has been refuted not just by stukely in the illinois s court but also by the u s supreme court multiple times it is our position that this case because it does not involve any interrogation any questioning of a suspect that it does not fit within the categor likewise because this statement was made under circumstances it couldn't possibly indicated to anyone on the scene whether it be the declarant willie wells or the police officer that this statement was being in taken in in anticipation or later use a trial bruton aside and i would suggest that that is a very good decision brewton has not been overruled but it has been subsumed within the confrontation clause analysis expressed in crawford that decision and that finding has not yet been made in illinois but it is fully consonant with multiple circuits in the federal courts and it's also supported by crawford itself crawford made mention of the route and pace but when it made mention of the group in case it in no way it simply said that grouping is one of our past line of cases that when we apply the testimonial analysis that we are now engaging in the result would have been the same so in other words crawford looked to britain and said we have been doing this for a long time before ohio versus roberts took a strike and what we really are doing is looking to determine if the statement is testimonial and of course in britain the statement was testimonial because it to a police officer on the scene no doubt directed at least officer but also no doubt not a result questioning the other couple of points that i want to make factually are very simple this statement simply because it has a hint of self interest does not mean that it's testimonial nor does it mean that it can't be an excited utterance in fact when we take a look at the statement itself i didn't have a shot and my brother did that's not just excel  as well that discloses a knowledge of what just happened and the weaponry involved at the scene so i would suggest to your honor's that that basis for defendant claiming that it's testimonial is really a red herring and it's there's another point i'd like to make and it will be the last point i made if these police officers were actually questioning the suspect on the scene that would have been one testimonial and it would have been one testimonial because it would have been in response to an ongoing emergency your honor asked counsel if the shock and was recovered and counsel could indicate that there was a gun recovered in the alley that the gun was the rifle because really well to discard it and drop the rifle just before he fell he was the one armed with a rifle shotgun was not recovered had not been recovered nor had either of the two other shooters in this case the shotgun was not recovered and till much later during this of the area and it was recovered one and a half blocks away from where willie wells fell out so under these circumstances had the police taken it upon themselves an interrogation of a suspect on the scene that would have been no doubt absolutely in response to an ongoing emergency because there were two armed offenders who had just essentially i'm loaded massive weaponry upon citizens on the street at this point the op says didn't know that it was just a thanks or disciple vice lord moment it could have been a scenario where three offenders are going around shooting at any innocent people on the street under these circumstances your honor based on the totality of the circumstances the environment in which wells made the statement was the end it assists of a calculated dispassionate account meant to be used in a criminal investigation or i try and for this reason and those stated in our briefs we would ask this court find that there was no error in the admission of these statements both of them and  statement to be considered testimony he said the founders would have considered volunteered testimony completely outside of police interrogation testimony under certain circumstances and especially has looked at it the circumstances are brother the person has a clear position but believe it could be used against the defendant in this case it's clear that someone who has been told is in trouble for using a shotgun says no the shit was not me it was someone else that's the type of