trial judge was that we were honest with her small when we get into joining trials of individuals whose defenses although maybe not antagonistic but the issue is those these are the circumstances in the case then it requires a severance just for the the fairness to an individual who is saying i didn't shoot anyone i didn't have to go on the allegation being made is that he made if he ended the weapon to the ultimate s prior appearances here is had an opportunity to read the briefs city and review the the record i'm not going to belabor what the facts in the issue of the severance is my client's position spent more we may have there may be a different result i don't know all but we are presented with a situation where this you know me and is involved in the trial were and once that jury doesn't believe motley the codefendant mr millions placed in a terrible position because he's now sitting there saying well whatever may have happened i'm not responsible we believe in have argued that the seven should have been granted and perhaps it should have been are you more strenuously by his  give you the reasons that it's given already and it's free if you look at the case itself go home past the issue of the you've got evidence from these multiple individuals you claim to be present during if not the entire incident but parts of the incident and you have marshall contradicts fold in of all certain telephone conversations missile ville contradicts bolden about whether there was ever a plan to do anything in the form of a shooting  this case is as it's presented by the state and the facts as they presented them against mr million was that they were solved plan that somehow my client took part in the plan that he further but when and by handing the weapon to this individual with the facts or so in a lot of other called courts are presented with these for lack of a better term accountability murders many times and there's lots of case law in the brief is referred numerous cases not only for the  defense here but the state is refer the court to other things you know cases but in this situation we are presented with the slim body mind set of facts bit in falls this young man in such a serious thing that you know he's going to receive a thirty five year sentence and indeed it is seems millions attorney may have dropped the ball and not least charming him i'll join in the objection which would take all of ten seconds and preserve the record african american male certainly raises an eyebrow and makes one step back and say why did you excuse  is arguing here is that perhaps the court may take a second look at this and say there's not enough evidence here for a finding in anything as he said for me to proceed back to the severance issue because now since he's being tried at the same time with mr smiley he's being denied the right to a fair trial because overall technically not antagonistic redundant what's in the brief the point is and i'm not going to cite any authority i haven't already cited the authority just does not support the defendant on this point there were no integrity defenses the defendant's defense was  defendant he said he shot he himself shot the victim in self defense he said he never commented he said the defendant never commented to mr marshall which marshall testified about killing the victim and others he contradicted a witness mr marshall who was a risk to the defendant he said he asked for the gun from the victim without saying he was going to use it to shoot the victim on the other witnesses who said that he said that the defendant fled and said nothing after the shooting he said contribution other witnesses the defendant did not hit the victim's body the codefendant by his testimony you can see trier of fact could have found it your honor if you don't need an active participation for accountability that's the reeves case you're accountable and to reach a few sure criminal intent there's a common criminal purpose you don't need words with reman there's a common design which is inferrable from the evidence it can be accountability can be based on evidence that the defendant attached himself on terrell to another b shoot him when you look at the evidence of the defending was earlier beaten by someone probably not the victim and was ticked off the victim that the victim had fired many shots in the year that there's all this evidence that both the defendant  but there were shots fired after that too so you know i think it's very feasible evidence to the prosecution without giving it any thought i would say that would be a basis for a jury to find him guilty under the collar stand considering the evidence in the high school like most of you the prosecution your honour's i will not argue anymore the facts of the case i do so in my brief pages basically five through fifteen the facts are there and my point is your senior man were of the same race the defense claim is based only on the run three challenges of one black male the prosecutor struck the juror in seat twenty and indeed there's very little record the prosecutor also struck five other jurors and two alternates with no complaint there's nothing in the record regarding their race the defendant said there was the defendant said that's these then of the record on this point there was only one wire me on the  state the reasons for the challenge the judge said no need the state attorney the mark to defend it in fact was a mixed race whatever that might mean jodi the judge asked if the defendant had anything he was on tenuous legal ground if the joint made many findings helpful to the prosecution on this issue so there were multiple african americans re that would be overwhelmingly helpful indeed perhaps necessary to your honor's to decide this case they she made of point that's very dispositive here she point out that each defendant was black the defense attorneys will play the victim was black the people's wishes were black the two lead detectives who testified black this was not a case of black on white crime or white on white crime that i think is extremely significant she said the defendant did not raise enough to indicate that people were excluding this one juror on the basis of color she did not say how many find anything about them and the seventh the color if you will of all the parties and ball show that all the players at trial as i've just described you were right the whole case fantasies distinguish page twenty five my brief based there are fifty percent of the groceries were used to give the black twelve percent of the veneer with a hundred percent white jury with a white victim and white officers in song your honour's the record here the defense responsibility does not show how many blacks on the jury there were or what percentage of the people from trees were exercised against what black percentage with and here are your honors that include concludes my comment well the problem is that the jury said we don't believe him so mr motley became mr millions worst witness because he now the jury is is what goes back to that worthies saying i'm not involved in this industry motley the jury's finding that motley wasn't involved in there was no reasonable basis to believe that this individual was