substance specifically the judge found on aug thirteenth two thousand and twelve he was accountable for a drug delivery made by a woman named was shown with donald to undercover police officer bradley walk on the day in question arrangements were made for a second train's action pursuant to those arrangements the officer picked up in this mcdonald outside her residence in his vehicle and they drove to a shopping cent where she said she would be meeting with her supplier while she sat in his car in the parking lot of the shopping center she made a couple calls on her cell phone after the second call she told the officer that her supplier was on the way the officer then the handed her a one hundred dollars she got out of the car and headed towards an alley located behind the shopping center at some point the agent lost sight of her in the meantime there were two surveillance officers parked in a vehicle near the shopping center when they saw mcdonald leave the agents vehicle they followed her towards this alley behind the shopping center not some point they also lost her but ultimately they drove past the alley and each of those officers testified that as they did so they saw mcdonald's standing in the alley near and on known male what to seeing mcdonald holding in the thing in her hands or secreted in anything on her person they then saw her leave the alley returned to the agent's car while the unknown male walked off in a different direction macdonald arrived back at the officers car handed him a pair containing a substance it turned out to be cocaine now in the meantime the surveillance officers wanted to find out who was this male in the alley they didn't know who he was they located nearby a patrol officer they knew they gave him a description of the individual and asked of the patrol officer could find that individual and ascertain his identity patrol officer testified that he was able to do their not and that the man was a large finally his mcdonald testified to trial she admitted to living the drugs to the agent she said she was was serving a sentence for that offense she testified that she received the drugs from her supplier but the supplier was not alamo large rather was a man she knew by the name of country and finally she testified that she knew i wanted a large you know known for a long time and they had two children together now it was very clear especially from the prosecutor's closing argument the prosecution's theory of the case was that the defendant was accountable for the deal because he gave the drugs to mcdonald's and then gave to the agent the trial judge here specifically asked the prosecutor whether he had to believe that in order to find the defendant guilty and the prosecutor said yes but in fact the judge did not make that finding in reviewing the testimony of the witnesses he said no one possibility that macdonald might have had the drugs on her person right from the beginning and let her have her saying she had to meet her supplier was merely a ruse or a canard us although he rejected the state's theory of the case the judge found mr a large guilty by accountability but i would submit your honour's that he had to speculate to do the hard that's the problem with this case he speculated that perhaps the defendant was there for moral support perhaps he was there as a curator perhaps he was there to make sure that the purchaser turned over the money to mcdonald according to the judge she believed that the defendant was mcdonald's quote agent for whatever purpose close quote in its brief on appeal i think the state very correctly summarize the judge's analysis here when the state rights of page twelve of its brief but the judge found the defendant guilty because he believed that the defendant participated in the drug deal in some way but i would  judge was forced to speculate here because the evidence did not show that he participated in the drug deal in any way and that is the reason the defendants in the us that he was not proved guilty by beyond reasonable doubt and why he asked this court to reverse his conviction now the judge apparently play some reliance on mcdonald's testimony that she knew and had known the define a very long time however she didn't testify that they stole had an ongoing relationship at the time of the incident most importantly perhaps she did not testify that they were involved in any drug dealing business together or that he shared in the proceeds of this deal nor was there any independent evidence that at the time of the incident that they were living together or involved in any drug business together it's also important to note here that neither mcdonald's nor o large were arrested on the day of the incident charges were brought until couple months later and then a warrant was issued for the defendant and he didn't appear in court until almost two years later in two thousand and four evidence here of any further investigation of the defendant and so no evidence about an execution of a search warrant or ever finding drugs on the defendant's person or any place that he controlled and  evidence that he either participated in or was even present in the vicinity of any any trains action occurring after this point in time and so really the only evidence in this case have some point before mcdonald the liver drugs to the agent but absolutely no evidence that the defendant played any role what so  well the the the officers in the surveillance car who drove past the hour they testified again they saw no transaction which of them did testify that when they drove by the alley and it only took a few seconds from oz it was pretty quiet but many of them both testified that each of them saw mcdonald with one of her hands in the air according to their testimony and the man with one of his hands in the air but handshake it could have even been a wave for all we know we never saw the hands meet never saw anything passed between the two of them and again never saw mcdonald holding anything in our hand or putting anything in our pocket or otherwise accreting anything on her person now is it somewhat suspicious it's somewhat suspicious might that have given the police reason to further investigate mr ole large perhaps to follow him to surveil him perhaps per perhaps no but that didn't happen you're all we have is what they briefly saw this also important to know that this alley was not under surveillance that the entire day the surveillance officers knew the transaction was going to take place somewhere in the parking lot but but that's the of the shopping center but that's pretty much all seeing after you reject of the defendant's post trial argument that he had not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt the judge came back to this idea of security said well i really think he was there from the perspective of security again that's speculation but beyond that i would say that that is really inconsistent with the evidence here because if your honour's know when drug deals go bad they tend to go bad or near the time of the delivery so one would logically think if mr a large was there for security that he would have remained in close proximity to mcdonald up until the time of the livery or at least kept her in his eyesight so he could go to her if she ran into trouble but the officers testified that ms mcdonald one one direction from the alley and the male went in the other direction that seems inconsistent with this idea that he was there for security what the evidence shows or the defendant's admits is nothing more than the judge's gut feeling that the defendant had something to do with it and that simply is not enough in illinois that is not proof beyond reasonable honour's if you were to affirm the conviction not only would that have a serious impact on mr a large but it would have a serious and dangerous impact on the law and no one all  and i don't mean to be overdramatic but i seriously submit you're on your honor's uphold the conviction on this evidence that would tend to signal the end of the reasonable doubt standard at least here in the third district for these reasons mr old large respectfully ask your on others to reverse his conviction the target of the previous spy that it happened about a month previously so this is very different from a circumstance where an individual say is arrested and then to  was not searched no and that is one of the things the judge mentions in announcing his findings he says it's certainly possible that she had the drugs on her person the right from the beginning if you agree re idea i can think of a couple of reasons number one maybe she's that she's thinking it's better for her for this transaction to take place and i'm in a public place in the parking lot of a shopping center as opposed to her home because of course we know from reading these various cases in these various news stories that sometimes drug dealers are rob and so maybe she figures if she can again it to be less likely perhaps for robbery to take place in this parking lot during daylight hours of a shopping center the other possibility i would speculate is that if if if she makes the deal after a home or near her home the dealer or  the purchaser might believe that she is storing the drugs in her home and therefore possibly to come back of another time to burgle the home or perhaps the word might be if the word gets out that she's got drugs in  police find out get a warrant to search the home whereas if she tells her purchaser purchasers oh no i only get the drugs from the supplier they have distances the drugs for her home and again it would seem that it's probably safer for her and so i think those are possibilities for those possibilities then we have to speculate further that this girl lars just happened  park in the tire store and near the shopping center so these businesses are there other open for business mr a large he lives in the community the babies there to go shopping he at one time had a relationship with this woman so maybe they stop and say hello again is it possible he's suspicious as i say it's possibly suspicious and it would i think possibly give the police reason doubt that's the problem speculation conjecture and the judge's gut feeling that the defendant must have something to do with this that is not enough to support a criminal conviction and it's perhaps suspicious perhaps justice writes question no they did not search or because she was the target she didn't know that walk the halls and undercover officer so that didn't happen and that's very different from other cases we see work or somebody now it was a bit of an issue in the in the trial court again the big donald testified she better supplier but supplier was another individual but in this it people defendant is not making an argument about identity is simply making an court counsel my name is shasta morton i represent the people of the state of illinois in this matter here in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the people all elements of the offense of awful delivery of a controlled substance being cocaine found here a judgment should only be overturned when evidence is so unreasonable or improbable as to raise reasonable doubt  our defendant was proven guilty properly found guilty of this offense and as counsel is now arguing on appeal identity is not an issue defendant is conceding that he was in the alley so when this control drug by occurred it's very similar to the previous drug buy with miss mcdonald where she dictate where the meeting space is  dictates that my supplier will be bringing me the narcotics in the previous my car pulled up there was some discussion between miss mcdonald and the driver of that car the driver pulls off and now miss mcdonald has crack cocaine in her hand that she is now giving to the undercover officer now in this second by that's happening at the food mart she again says that her supplier will be meeting her she informs officer that her supplier just left their house they'll be coming on foot and she leaves the officers car walks behind the food mart and she says that she makes contact with her supplier uses an alias by the name of country there is no other individual seen in the alley with her but mr a large and mr a large happens to be a father  to her children so there's no wonder other individuals seen in the alley with her or she the officers in the surveillance unit see her what looks like she's shaking hands with the defendant or that there's some sort of interaction going on because both of their arms are extended and then they part ways and there's no testimony that she was in the alley for prolonged period of time  on people's reading of the record it seems to be a pretty brief time between her leaving the undercover officers vehicle and returning with drugs in hand to give to the officer so it is a reasonable inference that the court made that the individual that she met in the alley that she says was her supplier to reasonable inference to believe that that individual that she met in the alley which opposing counsel is conceding was at least one of the individuals that she met according to their theory was mr a large the defendant that some sort of exchange occurred that they were engaged in a drug deal together that they are that he is just as accountable for this deal as she is in whatever capacity was there it was the people's position of course that he in fact gave miss macdonald her her drugs as she testified that's who she received it from her supplier and as i said no one else was in that alleyway so the trial judge made some very very reasonable inferences based on the circumstantial evidence that was presented as i said this is a very similar m o or structure for how miss mcdonald does her drug deals reasonable inferences were made based on the evidence presented that both of them participated in the criminal act shown by his presence in that alley there would be no other reason as to why he was in the alley as opposing counsel speculates that maybe he was going shopping but why through the alley he's in the alley and then he's walking down open avenue and then he's identified by this marked police car as yes that's allan a large i know who that is i id him i see that that's the individual the surveillance unit says yes that's the individual that we saw in the alleyway that part is not being contested there was an interaction in that alleyway that was a part of the drug deal that miss mcdonald was engaging i mcdonald i don't believe there was any testimony as to whether or not the officer in the car saw the hundred dollars again he just received the drugs that they had negotiated that he would be p ayers if she had the money you know well the agent right will be agents giving her the money to get the drugs i mean that's the transaction obviously so the money's going to her now if in fact she's sharing it with with the supplier well maybe she gives it to spiral maybe she doesn't there is again in terms of the testimony of the surveillance officers who are the only ones who seem macdonald in the alley they don't see any transaction or also they don't see her give him money they don't see him give her drugs they don't see him putting money in his pocket they don't see her putting drugs in her pocket they don't the only thing they see is each one has a hand in the air so what does that mean it could mean a number of different things and they have is the problem with this case because if it means a day could mean different things that's not proof beyond a pass right something has for happened and that there's not enough to show what if anything happens that's the problem that's the problem is how big is this package you see i think it was two rocks it was  hundred dollars worth maybe morse it's probably will be more specific testimony about how much it actually weighed probably wasn't much probably wasn't wasn't super large could have been small could be it's also small enough that she could have on her pocket right from the start which is what the judge himself so so the judge again the judge is not accepting the prosecution's theory of the case because again the process judge specifically  asked the prosecutor in order to find mr a large guilty do i have to find that he supplied the drugs to ms macdonald prosecutor says yes that's where you have to find the judge does not make that funding but he says well i think maybe was there for security or one of these other things which is also nothing more than speculation now this case would be very different if the circumstances were that mcdonald was an individual working off charges somebody who had been a rusted in now to get a better deal was hoping the police out by making bodies of them to other individuals and so it may have sort of a situation the officer routinely would of course search this this individual before sending the individual off with the money so that they would know that that person didn't have drugs on their person to begin with and then there's the meeting with one person and only acdonald is the target with respect to the prior incident about a month prior to this one that was outside a motel and she told the same agent meter supplier individual drives up in a car  was not under surveillance the entire day and so it's one altogether possible that she didn't it was somebody else in the alley before encountering mistral large that possibility is not foreclose by the evidence because again the alley was not under surveillance during the entire time officers didn't know exactly where the meet was going to take place and it was just a couple of seconds going by the alley where they saw what they claim to see the two i would submit at that point you should have the defendant not guilty instead he found the defendant guilty by speculating about other different ways in which the defendant might have participated but that's speculation and he's laws been clear forever that speculation is not good enough the case law is also clear that guilt by association is not a favored doctrine illinois of the fact they knew each other may have been reason for them to say hello but is not a reason to find the whatever evidence in this case was not a not because the judge had to say well maybe this maybe that maybe the other thing if you saying maybe maybe maybe well maybe not and if it's maybe not that is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt  not sufficient in illinois or the united states of america to sustain a conviction i you know i've i forget it was definitely argued in closing arguments and i forget whether it was such forth in opening in the opening statement but definitely a closing argument the prosecutor makes clear that her theory of the case is