on may ninth twenty thirteen at twenty six in california before judge mchale at that hearing miss madison was found unfit to stand trial even though the only testimony elicited during the hearing came from  forensic psychologist who conceded that he did not have an opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty about miss medicine's ability to understand the nature of the proceedings or her ability to assist counsel this court should reverse the finding of the trial court not only because jurisdiction exists to hear the hill but because reversals warranted on the merits so let me ask you mr daniels and his man has refused to participate in the second evaluation all right for a second evaluation she refused to cooperate what should the trial court have done to move the case forward i would imagine did the trial could have either requested that enter in your order requiring miss medicine to the further participates and oh yes or there was an order to that effect right there wasn't i believe that was part of the there was an order eventually to that affect as far as whether the trial was need to take any additional steps to require additional participation i don't know if the trial court necessarily need to do so so how can the case go to trial when there is spending a previous finding of unfit us that is now still the defendant refuses to participate in a second this evaluation defense counsel as far as i can see from the record is not stipulating that mr madison has to stand trial so how do you move the case for not fully cooperated in the second evaluation certainly the experts could have relied upon the underlying records the head and  reached an opinion on that basis and this record he said he wasn't able to i don't i thought the position you're taking on you know is what the second expert relied on wasn't sufficient in any of them because it was all hearsay that's true but i'm not i understand that under the fitness statutes that the failure to cooperate with the evaluation process is a basis for making a finding regarding fits i don't know if i don't have an immediate answer as to what the trial courts should have done differently if it should have done something different in this case regarding the issue of jurisdiction here there is no dispute between the parties that mrs medicine during the pendency of this appeal was subsequently found fit to stand trial with medication that were fit to stand trial with medication did not strip this court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal for one of two alternative reasons first if we consider the procedural posture of this case we are not on appeal from the final judgments in the disposition of mystery and medicines underlying misdemeanor case that underline just mean your case is still active we peel immediately on the issue of the finding of unfit to stand trial consequently that order a fit the stand trial with saying that she is referred to the partner harmony human services for outpatient treatment i didn't see any order that the trial court on or that requires her to take that medication i believe that that was in the supplemental common law record the the written order ation have to continue taking medication she could you know if she has not been in compliance of that order i would imagine that that would be a basis for some sort of remedial action to be taken against her so there it for her it is still an future if we apply a real p and l for the change which hold bets he case by case determination is required and examine whether the collateral consequences exception exists certainly in the situation if we took for instance a defendant melford h h who was a convicted murderer and had multiple previous involuntary commitments to mental institutions and if he had been appealing a unfit to stand trial order and saying now i can't get  would lead to a finding that as a matter of law when a man that does not have a criminal background that a finding of unfitness will always remain a for the second district which is directly on point in this case in pulls a misdemeanor defendant was found unfit to stand trial and was subsequently restored to fitness during the pendency of the appeal the collateral consequences exception was applied there precisely because it was a defendant who had never been convicted of a crime never been previously adjudicated mentally incompetent and therefore because now under that finding of unfitness  card statutes was a prohibition on her being able to exercise a constitutionally protected rights that the relaxing the move this doctrine under the lateral consequences exception was turning to the merits of the appeal itself i would remind the courts that there were three issues on the merits that we raised the state in its brief did not respond to any of those issues on the merits and i would submit that those issues have their throughout each of these issues on the merits the first one is that it's certainly axiomatic that an expert witness can testify about underlying facts or data that are the basis of his opinion the corollary nevertheless the hearsay that is permitted to be elicited during the hearing his nevertheless it made for the limited purpose of explain the basis of the opinion it can't be used to subsidize evidence that brings me to my first saying it's similar to our case but what about the other bases you say under the collateral consequences just option under that additionally under that regarding the collateral consequences exception we note that there would be a variety of other sorts of yes there there isn't any thing this is speculation and she wanted to get a license if something if the i mean of course is supposed to start speculating what somebody might in read of p there is not a requirement that the defendant make a specific showing that she was going to in fact seek the particular licensure  its most recently with three tippi what the supreme court how was that it has to be something that is directly linked to the finding that's an issue and it's a right that could have been exercised but for the improper finding and that's the case here there there is no requirement that mr madison needed to put into the record that she was planning on getting a firearm or getting a  opticians license or what have you and a certain level that would seem to make sense because one it is not looking to essentially tell their life story a fitness hearing the issue is whether they're able to understand the nature of the proceedings and whether they can assist counsel if it's already like to turn back to to the merits are first points on the merits is that the trial court erred in permitting dr cooper who was the clinical psychologist offense to fight to discuss the hearsay that he considered during the course of the examination because he had no expert opinion this case he testified that he had clinical concerns but he also testified multiple times full frontal wrecked the emanation cross examination he had no opinion and therefore if there was no opinion there was no basis for permitting that hearsay to be admitted in the first place there was compounded when the trial court then is to accept that there was any testimony whether it be expert opinion or lay pinioned we disagree in both those points the briefs i believe make that pretty clear even if that were the case that it was an opinion it was still me please the court assistant state's attorney justin civi for the people of the state of illinois in this case the defendant continuously and repeatedly refused to cooperate with the evaluation process in order to determine whether or not she was fit to stand trial in april of two thousand and twelve the defendant was charged one count misdemeanor battery the case proceeded to the branch courts i wish time there was a bonafide doubt as to whether or not the defendant would be fit to stand trial the trial court ordered to p c x examinations for which the defendant did not appear at the thirty six examination dr new concluded that the defendant would be unfit to stand trial dr news report became c e o as several continuances transpired in the trial court was question when the defendant refused to cooperate with the order referring her for fitness evaluation what should the trial or have done the people would maintain that the trial court properly is reverse because usually it's the state relying on the presumption of fitness saying this defendant is that the stand trial and it's the defendant who's saying we want the defendant evaluated arguing that the defendant is that fit to stand trial so i'm i'm it's a little confusing because now the state took on the burden of the state of wishing unfitness i and did so with an expert who could render an opinion on the subject that is correct that the expert cannot render an opinion as to the issue of fitness however the parties did stipulate that dr cooper was an expert in the field of friends of clinical psychology and he stated that he did have opinions related to the defendant as an expert in that field he had clinical concerns that based on his interactions with defendant based sign doctor news report based on the records that he examined that he had clinical concerns of the defendant suffered from a mental illness and that could cause possible concerns related to a finding offense the trial court took that into consideration in addition to its there is a written order in the supplemental common law record however after the people filed their brief we received the a supplemental report of proceedings at which time it included the restoration hearing where both the notes in the supplemental common law record he stated that he met with the defendant on october seventh two thousand and thirteen and the defendant specifically told him that she had stopped taking take a trip of medication suffer weeks prior dr new found the defendant fit to stand trial and as such this case is rendered moot i case is rendered moot when the issues before the trial court i no longer exist due to intervening advance and it would be impossible for this court offer any type of effective belief here the defendant is now fit to stand trial and there is no effective relief which this court can grant upon the defendant and he opinion would be strictly advisory the defendant  the plateau consequences exception in order to invoke to cut all consequences exception there must be a specific identifiable collateral consequence which is solely attributable it's they were british oh well how would you respond to the  exception om ceding that the defendant could face first legal consequences in the future specifically related to an f id card however the whole court did exactly what in  card here it is the defendant's own history of mental illness or her own history of hospitalizations and not solely this order at issue here today which would preclude her from obtaining that  to take this medication most importantly be it is important to keep in mind that the defendant is appealing the may ninth two thousand and thirteen order which found her unfit that order did not require her to take medication it was a subsequent order i took her twenty two thousand and thirteen i believe which if this court believes she is required to take medication then it would be that order which would have required her to do so furthermore she is not appealing that order therefore this is not the proper relief for her to be relieved of the burden of taking medication furthermore the people would point to the fact that the defendant herself state as your doctor knew that she stops taking the psychotropic medication of her own volition several weeks prior to her meeting with the doctor therefore the defendant is not if she voluntarily stopped taking the medication she cannot now claim that it's a burden to take the medication when it was her own choice to stop taking it with  already exists you know her history of mental illness and prior hospitalizations we asked that based on the aforementioned arguments and those arguments and our brief that this court dismiss brief in fact the opposite is true the supplemental report of proceedings was a motion was filed by by the defense on february fourteenth of twenty fourteen this court granted that order i believe eleven versus hold over mine the court that the state did not address holt and that's brief and therefore of way that hearing under three forty one eight seven additionally we do not dispute that this is a case by case analysis and contrary to the state's assertion but we are not asking for is a per se ruling that this medicine's entitle the collateral consequences exception when the state speaks about the fact that she had his three of mental illness what we have to remember is that information speaking to that history of car or engaging in any of these professions under any circumstances it but with regard to if i could focus on the point guard statute for instance i believe that since she's had no previous mental institutionalization is that she satisfies the quite all consequences exception i'd be hesitant to say that there couldn't be another case with similar facts and that's the defendant didn't have a previous criminal conviction or previous case the hospitalization or agree with you that the the new records they did some of those it i would imagine that to the extent that those facts are in existence that would still be if she had the ability to have this court's review the merits of her appeal that she could still exercise the statutory remedy this is in existence under the four card statutes to permits reconsideration for the current statute with that statutory ronnie doesn't give her an absolute right to get the firearm that it allows simply for a process by which that mental health the termination that was a limit before is now being reconsidered and all the facts and circumstances if there are no further questions from the court i would ask that this courts reverse the