good morning and me please the court threw out mr geoffrey williams's jury trial the state chose to rely on a team of responsibility and properly argued that mr wynes mr williams to the codefendant and to the of their witnesses in the case and they did and he did bring up the fact that he did not speak to the police and that he did that he did not say guilty like to the credibility of three witnesses and here we had three witnesses who were not consistent they were contradictory of one another i mean you had missed files who testified that she witnesses because their stories were all over the place they weren't in agreement about who retrieves the guy and they weren't in agreement even about the color of their t shirt that was that the gun was wrapped into the inside and they weren't in agreement about even the the color i mean it's a it's it's an important detail in that it goes towards their having the same story you need to have a consistent story in order to be considered a credible witness and here it was really important that these witnesses be credible because that's all that evidence that the state brought forward to show that mr williams was culpable  in this case there was no physical evidence there linked him to this to this case and so understand me when this case comes down to the credibility of witnesses the evidence is closely balanced and here the evidence was across the balance because these witnesses weren't credible they weren't on the same page about their stories you have an eight year old i think twelve or thirteen year somebody and that's what he wanted to know i want to see the major discrepancies they all said he left then we have him falling down on the ground crying when he finds out ems wanted a guy because he had gotten into it with someone however misfile said that that conversation took place over the phone and destiny said that this took place in the actual bedroom she did though she heard it th that they got the gun and this she gave him the gun at the back door of the apartment so those that's a discrepancy or at the end it is that we're talking about an eight year old a twelve or thirteen year old and a grown up w fifteen people to people in our conversation everybody's going to say a little bit differently you don't have to be precisely the same to him credibility but you should be on the same page about what happened i mean also there was testimony about how they initially lied to the police about what happened so there's already a step here for him and despite all these discrepancies all three witnesses were in agreement on the fact that th defendant was ultimately in possession of the wrapped in the shirt when he was in the kitchen of the rd floor apartment isn't that true yes but that isn't that enough you know that bare fact alone cannot it cannot you cannot say that they're credible just because they got that one would be very damaging the credibility of the witnesses here and they apparently fell within the script well we we don't know for sure because th had this running theme that because mr wu this was having a jury trial he didn't plead guilty that he was basically he was essentially running away from his responsibility and so he was essentially guilty as well so then the last the jury still could have mr mr williams could have been acquitted had the state not had this running theme of he's irresponsible for having a child he's irresponsible for wasting your arguing closely balanced as well be giving the evidence here was closely balance and then the testimonies of the witnesses weren't consistent and they were incredible so you know like i said you had no consistency your mouth you know what happened before or after this gun was allegedly in possession of mr williams and then you also head them initially lying to the police in that outside and i'm destiny told the police that the guy and was given to her to them by their grandma her grandmother so they weren't they where their credibility was already you of you couldn't tell if they were meant to be they were credible or not they weren't credible i just found their testimonies not coinciding and s gun at the same take place in time so that alone with the stipulation us to his convictions was enough to convict this defendant now the other thing to notice about how factually simplistic this cases is that the defense that was presented at trial which you can see in the defendant's argument the defense theory of the case which was necessary to counter this consistent eyewitness testimony was that while the mother having told the children in the record because there is no evidence of her actually telling the truth on this but it's actually disproven better because the record shows that the mother told the children to exonerate her and defendant to say that there was a drive by shooting and then she gave the keys to the apartment to the defendant and then the gun was never found we don't know how that or her course but the mother told the police this in the hospital while the child was being treated in the hospital but then the mother was taken into police custody from the hospital removed from the hospital in police custody she repeated this lie that she had told about the drive by shooting so from the time the mother was in custody and she was in custody and then she was charged and she pled guilty and she was given a prison sentence from that point on she was separated from the two children who then after the one child after he was confronted by the grandmother and told told the truth and then the other child separately because the one was in the hospital no one was staying at home and the grandmother both told the truth or told what the testimony would be at trial so there was no possibility of coronation between the mother and the two children because they were physically separated before they all told the same version of events so the defense theory of trial w presented proved it consistently all testify the same and the defense theory presented the trial was disproven there cannot be closely balanced evidence under illinois law because even in polk county which is really the one case emphasized that they didn't know the person they only had a few seconds to see him his head was sticking out of the window of a band at night it was a porsche chance to see well that's not the case here you have something they knew someone they'd seen frequently someone they recognize they were in a room in broad daylight with them and so none of the facts of pike house the house were this and so here you have a strong case from the state and disprove a defen products or something but under illinois law synergy means essentially you did these one errors such as you put in evidence should not have been didn't put him in order to then argue that evidence and make an improper argument with the one in the state front of the of the mother's conviction the state mentioned that shit her prison sentence but that error was never repeated and so not only do you not have pervasiveness because there's only one error in the entire trial portion of the trial but there's no synergy either because that air isn't then brought into the argument and then there's the question of whether each error in of themselves  defense theory was that the child will save some people to the mother because of his age so his age was an issue of the trial so that the people maintain the most of the other errors that are alleged here or are not hears or that they're so diminish that argument that mr was running away by having the trial because so would be guilty plea of mistrial as the state attempted to use the guilty plea as a way of showing that was a more responsible and believable witness where it's clear from the record that she's she was an honest witness she was not she was not a consistent witness in her testimony  so the state was attempting to use her guilty plea as a way of reinforcing this its argument that mr williams was responsible was irresponsible for having a trial and not pleading guilty like she i this state also misstated key evidence and it and confusing the jury into believing that mr williams confessed ownership of the guy and when that wasn't what he sa trial and to make their case appear to be stronger on this and the emphasis is on the children's ages also was to go towards this reading thing that mr williams was irresponsible for having a trial because back emphasizing the children's ages fish jury could take away could focus and on how old they were and not pay attention to the evidence that was necessary in order to