it's fair that the goal is to seek the truth and that faith erodes when the state's and even defense defense attorneys gamesmanship works to keep defendants out of court and obstruct their chances of getting a fair shot and that's what happened to this case state on its own accord once it found out that mr patterson had filed a pro se motion seeking an extension of time to seek private counsel to represent his request for independent testing on its own accord had the d n a retested and not because it wanted to not because it thought that d n a testing was required here it was for the explicit purpose of rendering mr patterson's motion moot that's volume twenty nine page two through three so that the petition would be rendered  an amended motion that independent testing request was struck but mr patterson behind the scenes continued to request that his attorneys now once mr present attorney told them that it was not in the budget to request independent testing through the public defender questions yes with respect to the testing that your client wanted done in the testing that his expert i can't recall if it was an affidavit or i believe it was an affidavit was that the type of testing that was done by the state they need to do a b c they said he said that there are several other types of tests which are now available name that yes he made several tests and then he goes on to name just a has now conducted me ask you this here saying he identified this test was in as just enormous and just an list of multiple additional tasks that are available or was he saying this is the test that needs to be done in this case for the most and there are kids that test for those fifteen and he named a few identify large on a problem plus how are plex h s and then he goes on to state that there's a mini filer which is used as a supplement to the other test and the going through the briefs in this case i thought the issue in this case was who did the testing not what testing was done yes your honor the main issue in this case is that mr patterson has never had anyone but the same trial analyst analyze that d n a well so you don't have a problem with the testing now well the tests knows that what one of the state's arguments is that mr patterson got the test he wanted that there are two conclusive results now and that not receiving a third additional test the only reason that a third test would have to be done was because the state had the d n a retested to render the motion moot so really mr patterson the still seeking that second test  would be against personal destruction for construction to say that independent laboratories that had experts wouldn't be able to analyze any d n a third the phrase to protect the state's interest in the integrity of the evidence in the statute pacifically talks about independent testing right yes so what should we infer from the fact that it's cifelli named in that section as it relates to trial but it doesn't say that as  discovery process here this is a different mechanism is a collateral proceeding and it would make no sense for the two for there to be a right in the panda testing at trial and to cut off that right and to say there is no more independent testing available after the trial because i mean they say i mean they know how to say because they see it for the trial that will at the trial court now will you know before trial you can ask for independent testing says that so is there something to be inferred from the fact that they made the decision to not specifically say that as it relates to collateral proceedings or post conviction there is not your honor if you know this court does find the statute is ambiguous the rule of lenity would require it to find mr patterson's favor that given that there is no language excluding independent experts or laboratories from testing this evidence that there should be that independent there should be that option for defendants to demonstrate the need for independent testing on a case by case basis and here there is that basis for independent testing misrepresented the results at trial as i said before this was degraded d n a these were partial profiles and steps she said and i quote i was able to discern determine that the blood found on the carpet did match that of der this is the most this most important crucial evidence in this case and we have no idea what effect that had on the jury said that they match he also went on to say work be severe fine work she did she did honor the court failed to exercise any discretion in this case and this this court can review this case and i believe based on the please how do we know it didn't exercise  there was no objective factor in no objective basis in the record to exercise discretion to allow independent testing then upon of the motion when the court considered the motion to reconsider where mr patterson was finally represented by private counsel who had advanced his requests for independent testing at that point but the court did not really state any ruling it just said it agreed it's at the end of quote but the state's response was appropriate so there's been no there's no basis in the record or there's nothing in the record to show that the court went through any sort of process and whether independent testing was actually warranted in this case all it said was that the motion was moot and then later said testing that was actually done in the state indicated they're going to have the testing conducted to make the defendant's motion moot did they do the type of testing that was recommended by defendant's expert from what i've seen from the records yes that's one of the tests that the defendant recommended and he gave the several lists and now one of the tests that that was accomplished were done by the expert was one of the tests that they did at that level you know there appears to be for lack of a better term a primary test in being there is this additional testing i can't remember the name of even though counsel was just saying it on this secondary t secondary test done i don't believe so no hasn't had the opportunity to rebut that presumption that she did back in the third she did do that there's yeah i guess my question is if you kind of had a road you know why they are i mean the state crime lab have the capability of doing that many tales here i wish i knew i have no idea i mean i could have probably asked before and i did call the lab see if that was the same person it was obvious is in person but if the state would like if you would like nothing is a record yeah correct i mean if i can go do additional research i could ask them but that may be on the record i believe so  as i was saying earlier defendant say three cases one of which is a rule twenty three order one was a cite to a case that doesn't exist this is an action not exist case and the one case definit did cite was did not mention independent now even if believe she stated that there was it didn't matter who conducted the task if someone else conducted the task like and in the illinois tag that would have been fine but i don't think it's the state's our state made this tag do this test i think from what i understand is that they gave it to the illinois tech and then they assigned it to someone it's not that the state told her to go do it so  or first i'd like to to address the state's contention that the statute does not allow for independent testing the state has said that there is no absolute right to end the testing which we agree there is no absolute analyze d n a so it would be an error for this court to read exceptions into the statute that the legislature has not made more over rule for twelve which doesn't allow for independent testing at trial their state is not offered any contention here but because there's nothing written in the statute there's nothing explicitly conferring this ability to a certain lab or analyst while denying it to another these are just reasons to inform the absence of any where the trial analyst has been trying to be unreliable and made that same mistake ten years later of saying that there was a match for it that there wasn't a match and it doesn't matter that that was not her gannon's the scan and testimony was never or the victim's body so we have been attempting to get the testing done so that the position would be rendered so this was not an option a stick act by the state test if it was to get mr patterson so for those reasons we asked this court to reverse