grief all right all right before during and afterwards after the fair was over he seems taken aback that had occurred he attempted to render aid and then remain under siege to be in response to the police arrived now the state fails to never circumstances which it believes establishes jason's as a principle the circumstances are very convincing in fact they're extremely frenzy when you look into the facts behind that the probably most important fact that that the state and the codefendant use in their drug case against my client chest would have had to have been caused by a certain grade that was it missed four inches in length but i don't believe that there's anything in his testimony that would suggest that a for a small brigade could not have cast the sashing rooms on the stick in murphy i know that but that would support that he only hit him twice as a record see that they were rolling him fighting for two or three minutes is there anything in the record that would support that it was th and when jason wasn't doing so well then the father joe correct errors but i mean it again it's understand the argument that's being made but i wonder if there's anything in the record that would support him saying to disprove this factor beyond a reasonable doubt it certainly did of putting the evidence into the record that we certainly agree that said even if the father acted within our reasonable belief it can be attributed to j c because smaller snatched the fair jason goes in and then he comes back out gets punched twice in the face and the fight ensues after that i think it's truly approach remember right after terri's testimony and that was very specifically that he could not remember the sequence of events he did say that very distinct arguments being made by the defendant smith and in this instance the st is a legal argument that a person under an oil cannot be held accountable for an offense which he here doesn't require showing a specific intent in fact in people versus now since the spring court said that you can have a common design to commit a battery and be convicted of murder and it does not matter in particular said but the fact that you didn't know that this was going to happen is emphatically not part of illinois to say that you can't be held accountable for that so these cases it's the state's position reject the defendants you met here today that he cannot be held legally accountable for a crime that he couldn't intend in fact on the kind of the site that is exactly what on the royal sets now bases here is rather announced and the evidence was sufficient to establish a skill for nd degree murder and there's another issue regarding whether or not what constitutes the accountable actions in this case and under the common and we have the benefit of the defense on words in this case the defendant submitted a handwritten statement and in that statement he said he explained that he got involved that day he sprang that he got him out but he could she was dr said that he got involved because he was strong and because the victim was fighting with the son never said that he sat on the victim grabbed the money his son's hands he may have been out there but it doesn't mean that he necessarily sad he had the opportunity to explain why he got around and he did not say that's why he did the risk absolutely no i haven't suggested that he got involved in this case because he believed  case clearly the victim was the initial cross or he was the running who was beating the people who were who punched the curb the fan doing two times one or two times with depending on who you are the testimony involved he clearly was the initial aggressor so when you look at this we're going to add this which evidence any difference whatsoever in this case i submit that it made that absolutely no difference regarding this efficien between defense counsel on the prosecutor and on the trial or the trial it was concerned to seem like right what evidence there was in this robbery conviction that the that the victim had as to  not to submit any evidence regarding this because the victim in that robbery case ended up having bank deported so there's reason for defense counsel in this case to not submit any testimony regarding that because the victim was not available in this case so there is a matter of exercising reasonable judgment in this case and again for the claim of ineffective since accounts of the defendant has to show that there was some type of prejudice and we submit that there is ability theory of trying to act naturally in self defense the clear answer made a finding that these guys were acting it in self defense against an initial aggressor who started the fight so there is no prior stand to commit a batter and here