the first being the failure to object to a surveillance video and the second the failure to object to hearsay testimony however before you get into the specifics of those two claims i'd like to address this court order regarding people this court case and should address these issues on direct appeal rather than waiting for a separate collateral proceeding because all the evidence necessary to address these issues is present on in it would be egregious yes there's no whether or not it's the failure to object was the product of oversight or whether it was based on some strategic decision it doesn't matter there's no strategic decision that could prohibited therefore if i did it doesn't matter what council the reasoning was there there's nothing they could they could have justified it and we were one of those with the fact that it was damning way heavier so prejudicial to his client that it was an outweighed by any any possible search teaching considerations and there were other witnesses who made certain identifications at least that's what the record reflects but were those identifications well it's it's not sufficient to carry the day under under the president's promise there are several problems with the the victim's identification first off being he only saw the sale for a matter of seconds before his glasses get knocked off and according to the victim himself he was pretty much blind once he moves it's his glasses he also had never met this victim before eve never met the same woman for he didn't know this person which  distinguishes him from the coworkers who had worked with mr miller for five days a week for several months and also the photos identification was cross racial which scientific evidence shows is more prone to error  quite frankly he was over four imagine those to mr miller who was off by over fifty pounds several inches and roughly fifteen to twenty years in terms of a business is were knocked off as well yeah mean yes his glasses were knocked off when he was in the bathroom so there's there's many problems with this identification and evidence as that illinois supreme court has read denies that people be working on recently there's been a dramatic shift regarding our witness identification this d n a evidence has shown that eyewitness misidentifications are the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions more then any other factor combined and on your honor also mention william currie who was the maintenance man at the at the gas station there are there are two problems with his testimony as well in that it was problems crews identification here some flaws and problems due counsel for the defense argument closing argument you still shot taken from the video as well as recording were not clear it could not be the defendant trial strategy for knives it wasn't a reasonable justification for not objecting because first his argument was based on the relative size of the assailant in the video which could have been shown leases demonstrative evidence on so he could have made that same argument using that camera and still objected to this rear exit camera which was the camera miller but that doesn't justify having and doesn't outweigh three independent witnesses who knew mr miller coming into court and positively testifying that's him the jury's going to those two videos together the back hallway camera and the rear exit camera and they see the manager of the gas station tony when i testify across the surveillance system but her testimony was insufficient to show that this program is working correctly that this program produced accurate timestamps that the reliability of this process was correct in her testimony said nothing about how the regarding what john skinner another axeman point told him now as a sequence our officer weber's testimony in this point is it's not entirely clear it's slightly ambiguous but any plausible explanation for what he was testifying to it's still going to be inadmissible because it was either irrelevant or  more or less probable but didn't the judge recognize that this was a problem and didn't he say hey i can't consider that evidence anyway because clearly hearsay and although i don't  he says i would consider it he just says i can't consider so it doesn't that cured part of the problem well but it was a jury trial so even the fact statement was made in the context of the i believe the motion for the directed verdict at the close of evidence so yes but and i think that that statement actually supports our position the judge recognized the statement was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted that it was hearsay and coun go to lunch in eleven thirty and therefore this possibility is left open is a reasonable interpretation and considering the judge interpreted that way certainly it's possible it's not likely that the jury to agree the same way who contradicts a main portion of the defendant's testimony that he wasn't present at the gas station x the time of the robbery now is it is presidential as as the surveillance videos not i believe those are more presidential but here we still have an instance of deficient performance and testimony that was admitted that the jury was not it's given in living instruction on that tank top i do read it and then a separate location a box cutter none of it was specifically types of the defendant either through forensic evidence or through the fact that it was strategy was to point out specifically the timing and as as conceded by the defense in his brief time the biggest issue here and defense is trying to show that mr miller was not there at the time that it was allegedly or what the state is trying to there from eleven thirty to twelve ten it is trial strategy to not object to this but rather allow to bolster his argument that this is not the defendant he wasn't here he testified to he testified to the jury that he was there between eleven thirty and twelve ten these poor kids were not present these coworkers did not see the crime exist they don't even know what happened they did stated yes that is the person that it work with that is identifying as the defendant leaving the exit but it is actually the people's positions at the victim his own testimony which there is case law saying that the are these three identifying witness it's it again they weren't there they didn't establish the crime they did or didn't see the crime they didn't bolster the fact that this crime existed all these did it was that this was my coworker that is not sufficient or the people's position that that is not able to state that the defendant was exiting the road ranger at this time that there was a ten dollar that he exchanged ten single dollars with a coworker who gave him a ten dollar bill furthermore there was another  closing argument that the state did present that evidence or did talk about madness your honor sorry that they didn't discuss the identification but however just certain comments within a closing argument are not sufficient to show the this is prejudicial towards the defendant what we do have here is that there was enough information i know that in spite of it by william curry and by another coworker identifying exchanging bills with them that there is enough evidence here to show the friend it was guilty of this armed robbery incorrect conclusions but is going up by defense counsel this is a jury trial there are multiple people on this jury that could have heard that statement and come to different conclusions not the ultimate conclusion that this was a hearsay statement but rather just a regular s somebody that's your say i mean it just anybody knows that and so it does not what came out if we look at the wording correct specifically question in fact you did speak to mr skinner is that correct answer correct opposing counsel argues that trial for our counsel strategy was to show that your friend was not there at the time of the crime if that's the case there was there was simply no reason to lead in this video which then further allowed three identification showing that the defendant was at the range or at this time and even counsel's defense counsel closing argument was that this video  confidence in our com and here are if this if this video had not been emitted this trial looks very different and it's just not one that we can have confidence in the outcome now holding counsel talked about simply does not it is not sufficient one sufficient to have confidence in our home of this verdict with ours without these three other identifications so with the evidence that would be left if excepted your arguments we had the incorrect or or the top problematic identification of the victim we have a curry identifying or misidentifying a piece of clothing that somebody is wearing and they could have big i suppose they could've gotten the work records for the defendant and introduce those the proper way but with if we accept the hearsay statement argument that you've made then we don't even know what time he goes to dinner usually the very there's there's conflicting testimony from the different coworkers about when the lunch break starts and if they have to