and i would like to focus my comments this morning on the first issue that was raised in my brief period it probably means was convicted of resisting arrest there is evidence in the right verdict that she that her actions were taken in response excessive police force and that she was acting in self defense and yet defense counsel never submitted a self defense instruction to the jury depriving ibrahim's illegitimate and perhaps really her only valid defense and as to what she can actually doing whether it's hurting you know she's four hundred pounds they had to that point a single set of handcuffs so for them to well it seems that the police also have a duty to accommodate a person's physical situation into a rest in a way that's going to avoid an escalation of conflict i mean if you have  this act of putting the hands in front was that acts the mission or as the option or say you know she would put them behind her back could she was a reasonable for her to say i can't do this did the jury believe her that it was the and did the jury think that this was an excessive use of force for her to end up on the ground the question here is is there evidence in the record that suggests that she was responding to excessive use of police force these are jury questions is this excessive where she responding because she was afraid that she was going to get hurt further are or that she was in pain or that she was afraid and she suddenly has six officers surrounding her we're not disputing the papers an accurate we're just saying that it didn't catch what happened before she fell on the ground and that after her falling on the ground out whether that's her resistance and the jury wasn't explicitly instructed as to what they needed to find  t instructed as to which act constituted resistance these are all jury questions which a did not have an opportunity to obliterate the jury was essentially told if you find that there is any resistance you know that he's an o defense the jury didn't consider all these other questions these questions became irrelevant i to it even so because it was ineffective for not seeing that the jury was properly instructed that it could not consider were resistance whether the police were acting excessive way whether she was acting out of fear because she was being harmed in this was not inconsistent with the defense theory the defense argued that she was getting beat up there was no reason not to get this instruction and we would argue that she was prejudiced by this because the jury ended its deliberations prematurely without considering really obvious evidence that the defense presented because they that's even more the defendant testify should present evidence right right because there are other questions that need to be given to the to the jury  are other questions on those issues we were to say that and one other point i guess i would like to make about the prejudice is that the jury did acquit april games on the other counts which came down to credibility and so prejudice notes here we don't dispute your good that's the way that that this court has looked at the situation however there's no constitutional right to rule for thirty one b questioning violent violation which is a constitutional issue it's subject to harmless error analysis and here we have room for thirty words is as illinois supreme court will and should not use a harmless error analysis it just wouldn't make sense well i think they are numerous x y the harmless error and they all should be applied in this case the trial court asked about the subject matter of the zero principles and she the trial court specifically asked athol to nic could be fair and diminishes the air and the alternate was given a written instruction detail in that the defendant was presumed innocent and there's no evidence that the alternate was biased against the defendant or that she didn't understand  principles or any or that there was anything that would call into question her objectivity or neutrality and there's no evidence that the defendant didn't have a fair and impartial tire fact one to address issue one i'm from the minute the defendant arrived at the scene of the acts and she attempted to thwart the police officers investigation through deception and when her deception was or veiled and the officers informed her were placing her under arrest for obstruction of justice again defendant for the officers unquestionably lawful actions by resisting her arrest the benchmark for adjusting judging any claim of ineffectiveness is whether counsel conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as producing a just result defendant has not made the showing for you know with really jury with instruction with the jury  what specifically respectfully disagree on because the the jury during closing argument ok let's let me back up for a second this this is why i disagree for from the moment the officers gave a verbal commands telling the defendant that she was under arrest and defendants first reaction to say was that you find handcuffed in front and then to clench your hands together and at that time nothing the officers did could that the defendant didn't lie didn't resist erast didn't kick officer heinecke though the the strange thing was that the defendant didn't do it and the defendant testified that a trial and she said all of that she said she didn't do and so to to in hindsight suggest that her counsel was in effect a for not tendering his self defense instruction is to brand is to like unfairly brand her counsel and effective where he her hands in front of her and everything that resulted after that this is a standard arrest a standard routine procedure that could have taken two minutes and it said it took seventeen because the defendant would not comply and w hands to her side she clenched them in front of her and so on of these facts and circumstances a self defense instruction were not of the proper and therefore the defendant's right of self defense was not triggered and counsel strategy that the defendant didn't do it was valid and and it was successful for two to four charges and it's inappropriate to bring counsel and effective for using a strategy that was totally effective the outcome would have been different because that is the self defense is an affirmative defense and the defendant made no affirmative action and testified that there was no affirmative action taken to to justify  it's no i'm sorry i think it's ok let me step back and restate that so self defense is an affirmative friends and the defendant did not testify that she took any sort of action that was justified she well i mean i think i believe it when she's saying that she she's saying no i didn't do anything my with my body was out of control my actions were involuntary i put my hands up because i couldn't control my body i mean she's still stating that she took no affirmative action in protecting herself i think i believe that's what she says during during her testimony so in conclusion it's inappropriate to bring counsel as in effect freezing a strategy that was completely effective resistance because it can be something as little as you know putting your hands in your pockets and and she could testify when the state's attorney cross examined her while you're swatting why are you continuing to be this ray she did say it was because i was in pain i wanted them