upon which individuals may exercise a myriad of other essential rights and that's right here mr shah's fitness san trial was questioned by his own attorney twice prior to trial at the fitness hearing that occurred the day before there's a myriad of ways that he could have done that for any and all and people versus the second district stated that by asking questions of defendant and defense counsel that was one way to show that he was exercising independent judicial analysis defense attorney could answer questions as to whether or not in this case mr shah was able to assist in its own defense additionally here there was absolutely no discussion of the substance dr low's meeker four page report  certainly we could question the two doctors and the discrepancies between their two reports certainly a stipulation is just presenting evidence without having a witness testify but the trial judge is still the done correctly understood it seems to me like we're now doing a legal fiction here from the trial judge should i look at this report that stipulated i still have concerns of problems i  very say let's see hillary i don't know what they're going to present what what else are they supposed to say specially if the prosecutor thinks the guys with the stand trial the defense attorney every evidence that the defendants ability to observe relate and he sees me recollect in the late occurrences especially those concerning that incident allege and communicate with counsel that's one example of evidence which other cases individuals family members or their own doctors have been called to testify regarding miss printing and that the following up with just a statement of comments here it really is that the evidence was there it was there and dr in fact reviewed the report and based on his review of the report was finding the defendant it's almost that there is a presumption against  also taking that observation in conjunction with the report and making a fitness determination here there's no indication that the trial court he he certainly didn't say i've read this report and again he didn't discuss any issues that were raised in the report regarding mr shah's mental capability or mr shah's inability to communicate which was later seen at trial and sentencing and in lewis there was no  issue raised besides the quality of the stipulation over here if there is a suggestion that mr shah was not fit at trial and sentencing and there is evidence that there was a bonafide doubt of his fitness how factors relate to whether or not there is a bona fide out of fitness include a defendant's demeanor at trial the prior medical opinions on his men heard while defense counsel's own rambling statement and that testimony is attached to the brief in an appendix i would point to the transcript in full and as well as the defense counsel's own statements at sentencing describing mr sh testimony as i mentioned earlier at a fitness hearing the defendant's ability to observe relate acts incidences especially related to the alleged friends are evidence of his fitness here mr child was not able to communicate anything really to the jury and his defense counsel simply stated that he did not even understand what he said ashraf so mr shah's statement that trial and likewise his again lengthy rambling statement that he made a sentence and raised a bonafide doubt of his fitness because they showing a complete inability to relate the occurrences of the alleged incident and communicate with low's report and found that he had based on that report it was findings of the defendant that that would have been sufficient here that would have been sufficient as well as i mean questions report meaning that i will take it as if the doctor we're here to testify and will have our hearing in addition to the report what other evidence you wish to preserve as the prosecutor well certainly in this instance  another piece of evidence that could have been presented was testimony from the champagne jail mental health workers both fitness evaluations expect the prosecutor prepared i do not expect the prosecutor  his obligation to do that certainly in people versus hope the illinois supreme court determines that account counsel was not in effect of for not arguing defendant was fit and that case defense counsel believed that his client fact is able to consult with a what other what evidence is that you would expect them to preserve the syces history of past mental illness and that wasn't already in the report that was already in the report  i don't believe the retrospective fitness hearing would be appropriate because the fitness evaluations are over a year well then we can ju understand why the court has not given that the benefit of the doubt and that is not assumed to have been done by some decisions that are out there suggesting that the court has to firmly state that it read the report but the record here pretty clearly indicates that the trial judge had into his hand report he asked offense counsel do you have the report that was filed on october twenty ninth and then he follows up by saying have you read the report dated october fourth so he clearly has the reports in his he's questioning defense counsel and the prosecutor as to whether or not they're going to stipulate to that report's hanton so i don't think it's a big leap of faith here to believe that the trial judge actually read the report it's in his hand and relied upon that and judge when the judge the trial judge says well will show based on the evidence whatever what what other evidence could he have that he's basing this decision on if not the report it's obviously in his pos would testify in conformance with this and that her conformance with his report hold the report probably in his hand at the time to be asked council make that stipulation so i think the minimum has been that here but i think the court actually raises a pretty good point and that is you know in all honesty what is counsel all about the middle illness or the judge for that matter i mean society is struggling with mental illness a ll over in several instances particularly in just the system and i think we're asking a great deal the trout judge to put himself in the position of that of a psychiatry allergist and make an independent evaluation i mean it's one thing you have the power to something you have the power to make this decision you have the power to ask questions or to call here it's quite another to put the burden on the trout to say that you have the obligation to make an wasn't good enough for the trial judge to simply accept that that stipulation so is that a scenario that the lewis corridos trying to coerce by having the trial judge make some safe i'm not accepting the stipulations for finding i'm the exception the stipulation this is the evidence i have reviewed the evidence and based on that evidence assist my fight so i react think that was the sole purpose of this whether or not you know there's just a case for that leap to this court to decide but i think that's the minimum and i think that minimum was met here in this case i think the trial court should be given the benefit of the south from this record appears as though he did have the report in front of them i think he in fact read that report relied upon that report of making his final and as the trial progresses should this defendant or any defendant act out you know i question i suppose judge yes i it would be the position of the state that that would be sufficient because there would be i think an inference and there in the court had reviewed the board of psychiatry and was casting the psychologists or psychiatrists in both of them who have reviewed this didn't know what they were doing i suppose if i've never been in a position where i suppose the argument  last few days before trial and spend some time with his client the county jail right for this case for trial and this is strongly of the opinion that is the criteria is he attempted criminal sexual assaults but you know this is an interesting legal discussion with consequences what was that evidence of trial what was the state's evidence at trial took recall your honor the victim testified this case i would think she would have had to apply you know you know honesty it was not an issue again you know i looked at because i didn't think it was being raised by the appellate well the the on your honor's i'd like to first address the timeline that was at issue here there were some questions regarding that defense counsel first requested a fitness evaluation seven months before trial and six months before trial dr jekyll performed that fitness evaluation months passed with no mention of fitness then about two months before trial the defense counsel raised concerns of mr shots to terri orating condition in the trial court responded that would not quite frankly surprise me dr jackal's excuse me dr lowe's fitness evaluation happened then two months before trial and the fitness hearing happened on the first day of trial so there was some time between each of these fitness evaluations and the trial actually occurring now even if this court finds that the fitness hearing was proper but there was a bonafide out of mr shah's fitness to stand trial which came about based on a number of cumulative factors like i mentioned earlier dr jekyll report contained a question and answer session with mr shah what she posed questions about his understanding of the legal system in mr chavez hopes to answer in coherent coherent responses in complete sentences his trial testimony did not include anything that could be described as coherent and that scene in the jury being unable to understand his testimony and requesting for requesting a transcript and defense so the juxtaposition and again that what i would describe as an internal inconsistency in his report that something that if mr if dr lowe had possibly testified instead of his report being stipulated to that evaluation defense counsel subsequent motion for a fitness hearing based on mr shah's deteriorating condition the trial court's statement that he was not surprised by defense counsel's ongoing work concerns concerns raised by the champagne county jail mental health workers  star behavior mr shah's incoherent statements the jury know that they were unable to understand his his statements mr shah's letters to the trial court which although we have not discussed are some somewhat that there was no bona fide out of fitness to stand trial that that may be a option however i can think of no case in which that was the remedy prescribed in people versus cornetto where there was an improper fitness hearing it was remanded for a new fitness hearing and if necessary a new trial and people versus sure show at where there was a bona fide out of defendant's fitness craze during trial and sentencing even though there had previously been a fitness hearing in that evaluation or another form of evidence that's allowable is defendant's social behavior inabilities orientation at a time and place recognition of persons places or things and performance of more mobile motor process and so there are some although my time is up i'd like to just briefly discuss the manner of retrospective in this hearing that's very brief for a very very brief although retrospective in this hearing are in times appropriate