committed against young children and not reported for some time prosecutors are now faced in a catch twenty two position louise article says that these defendants cannot be charged as juveniles but the trial court says they cannot be charged language in the case that certainly strongly indicates that they can be charged as an adult and it's kind of interesting because it was are both parties said well you've got to charge this guy as a juvenile because he can't be charged as an adult both sides and this court said that that presuppose offense would be independent to criminal prosecution this court finally went on to say that it would if it were if it were beyond dispute that this is the case we might agree with the was originally charged as a juvenile and was later charged as an adult and they found the second and i had to be the one that said it was well past the age that it could be char charged in juvenile court because the time that this court was for this charge was filed certainly at the time that the superseding indictment was file and this is as i say this isn't it is the discrepancy between the time that the crime was committed and the time that the defendant was indicted for this charge if there a red flag and if you can read the supreme court's opinion in this case you're going to say see that it is reversed and remanded i argued in my brief to this court that  the analysis of the juvenile court act in luis r is still valid for this reason the supreme court chose not to address the central question of whether the circuit co that the circuit court did have jurisdiction there were two cents and the supreme court's decision in justice her took issue with this stating that majority concludes that the it was fine it was no longer a minor the juvenile court read it really does not authorize the state to institute proceedings under the juvenile court back even though the respondent was under the age of seventeen when he allegedly committed the people that have a prosecution for one reason or another whether it's because in a case like this their victim is so young she does not report crime for some time and the others just simply because they move nocturnal court proceedings and not coming up until sentencing however is totally ignored at trial and was properly raised with sufficient evidence to support any claim of dilatory action by the state presumably it could be raised at sentencing but this is my contention that the law is very clear in the state of illinois this morning when an offense is alleged to be committed by a minor or by somebody who is under the age of seventeen at the really has to do with the issue whether or not he could even be prosecuted without anybody can even be prosecuted as an adult when the crime was committed when they were juvenile which is not going to get to this question is part of the question the with the prosecution of this crime the reason became case doesn't take away my contention the brazier and the related cases control here because in this it was very limited issue the supreme court held and in fact in that case a defendant was sixteen when he committed  can be prosecuted as an adult there's not a single case in that i believe you find out in practicing law for twenty five years in the last twenty five years i've never heard of a minor being charged in this middle for the best it was committed when it was a minor we basically direct this state as to where and when they should file charges you know you're in other words that we would say if a defendant is twenty at the time he learned of the charges have to file in juvenile court and then take whatever say that's an injustice my argument to that is you know we have procedural rules we're due process rules there was a murder case within the last couple months ago reversed based on speedy trial issues people might say with an injustice you can have these procedural rules the holding in king the supreme court's holding in king is directly contrary to prophecy prosody is not good law there is no underlying thing left hanging and crossing it was over exercise in futility to charge someone be he twenty one over two or three months to have this twenty first birthday to charge them when  whether the petition as concerning any my prior to the minor seventeenth birthday has violated any state law and this court goes on to know that if the general assembly had intended to permit the state to