that made you two other considerations in only the barest of circumstances those various circumstances were not present in this case just one member of the public a woman who raised evidence little brother in whom  public where any of these accommodations suggested by mr evans counsel knowing she suggested it was only one person and they could make it work but they didn't get into specifics beyond the you know it was a small bite especially in a case where it is only one person it's not difficult to conceive of as i said calling your prospective juror is putting them off to the side putting a bailiff nearby in that case wasn't it wasn't significant to the court's analysis but it just so happened that that case involved the defendant's uncle who was hoping to attend here and as in this case the judge didn't understand his role  it's similar to the taylor case in the second district where you know it's as if we had a blanket policy of excluding family members and that seems to be what was going on here since there had been no actual problems occurred with another spectator but we can understand why person trying to attend so there's a lot of accommodations that have been proposed in the case law about how you need to make it work and family in this case i think only twenty of those prospective jurors were questioned so you can see how i know it wasn't necessary to put all those people in there at once and effect evidence himself wasn't in the court room so little extra space there record about what's possible and what's not and so it is that it's willing to indulge in that kind of speculation in order to protect this right so yes some speculation may be involved but it's not difficult to see how this case the prosecutor told the jury that he was pioneering the state of illinois have choices to make and prosecutions including the way people culpability in evaluating whether or not they're selling we believe should be considered as a witness and then making charged with an offense will just take everything he says for truth we check it out we don't just take the word of anyone and we are willing to question how did those remarks back the witnesses testimony with the credibility of the government which is late at night it was a fleeting unexpected kind of occurrence so their opportunity to give the offenders was limited williams admitted he had been drinking neither williamson or petty claim to recognize the offenders and call so although they eventually made a strange identification of evidence that wasn't until one month and two months after the fact you know after the training ground volunteered some information in the hopes of getting a deal for himself phone was being used by himself so there's a lot of pieces to the state's case but you know you start taking it all when you realize that it doesn't add up to that much particularly when you have this  that they didn't say that they said we made it we made a decision and we turned him into a witness which they did obviously outset by which for his credibility i mean they right after they acted in the state's attorney quote the instruction and it's for you to that decision i believe ability right well below the remarks in question one identified as improperly and so you know i didn't like roy williams they can still have an impact in a case where that ability is significant so they could prosecutors play with cells out there and i don't think that's lost on a jury they get they get that kind of courage or feeling sometimes an argument that like we're all on this team together and i think there's limits to that kind of argument and i a please the court counsel the trial court in this case that's your size appropriate discretion in asking ms peterson to leave the courtroom only during jury selection the trial court in this case expressed  contamination and having enough room and spectator session to accommodate all of the potential jurors going to the trial judge to that initially yet if you say that initially i'm concerned about juries contamination because she didn't she say she is she really no problem but she said she said but i'm going to have to ask you to leave and they went on to explain to her concerned about jury contamination in this case and then also went on later on to explain it to so the small confines of the of the jury room to me the record in this case she didn't say that in the very beginning but she did say it and made a find in this case expressing h concern for a jury contamination which is officially a valid reason to remit a clear it was a trial and wouldn't be at apply in every jury trial in this particular courtroom i  children called juror forty five jurors down for jury selection she had three rows out of my computers but seating for the jury to do and she was worried about whether his seat seating was peterson right next option defense counsel could have suggested that as an option but to not do so the judge is obligation in this case was to consider reasonable alternatives she didn't sell she should consider it was a reasonable alternative would be us is the judge did it for she exercised her discretion that she considered reasonable alternatives there is no suggestion that she has to consider every possible scenario that someone else could come inform the public him in a certain point during the trial what i'm saying is that in this instance the judge had historic concern and sure made an appropriate record in this case expressing her door of concern and so for julie contamination and monster and the judge in this case exercise trying to special which is permitted to do and said that she was concerned that that would not be enough and under the circumstances in this case to make sure that there was no possibility of jury selection and the judge would be adequate findings she presented an adequate record in this case to support the claim sure although the trial during jury selection and only during jury selection  from this record that that was a possibility and that's what we have to look at is the record that's before us and you know their defense counsel never presented any evidence suggesting that that was a possibility in this case you could use thank you and turning to the next issue of the prosecutor's comments in this case was with well within the bounds of appropriate comments during closing argument live the state is going to get a great reduced sentence he's not going to have to do with a time even though according to the state he was near took the car after the bridge after the young man was shot and the prosecutor in responding to that s even to this court we're fighting to find that this isolated conduct was improper big bear in this case would not result in a finding the defendant was prejudiced to the extent that new trial was mirrored that the evidence in this case was overwhelming afterwards not only was there overwhelming evidence in this case there was the jury was a start to the closing arguments are not evidence and to disregard it like me it's not based upon the evidence and again that this out of this common in this case was is exactly the point these cases are making it's the reviewing courts are permitted to come up with scenarios they're reasonable in the common sense view of how courtrooms work injury selection works and the fact that you can come up with those scenarios means that there wasn't enough of a record in this case to justify excluding its grandmother also counsel mentioned that the judge was going to go back later