know whether or not my client had adequate representation at trial whether or not certain of it is was admitted properly whether or not there was sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and whether or not the sentence was excessive on the law as i said out the facts or the this case are relatively straightforward this is a home invasion the victims of the home invasion do not provide any identification is the alleged assailants my client has no confession there is no forensics or any other independent evidence which links my client's client to the crimes in my client was never discovered the proceeds of any crimes i would i would argue that the facts of this case kind of come down to testimony or evidence associated with three witnesses circumstances of this case in the records i think i broke it down into three different areas but i feel that one area is very specific in the other two areas kind of combine into the second area the first of which is there was evidence which emitted a video surveillance footage without stipulation of foundation or without sufficient evidence as it relates to the foundation for something from for such evidence from any of the state's witnesses i believe those called exhibit eighteen at the trial level this exhibit purported to show my client with the other statements of the offense within several hours of the alleged offense taking place using a credit card that was taken as part of the home invasion either in my client was using it or someone he was with was using it and this was just a mere few hours after the alleged offense took place and i would argue that in this particular case when this evidence was moved where this surveillance footage was captured was some several perhaps you can miles away in four hours after the fact that that doesn't necessarily show that my client actually participated in the underlying offense but my issue  following the offense is evidence which would suggest that the person was involved in the underlying offense having people use the proceeds specifically the credit cards which were taken during the home invasion this is a short time after the  surveillance should footage i believe is from ten to ten thirty in the morning time so that that would be completely reasonable in terms of the they need their getaway day wacko elude and then they proceed to spend it according on the will  elements of the aggravated identity theft and i would say that just because a surveillance footage could be used to show proof of the aggravated identity that it does not mean that it is the only thing that out it is good news for in addition the defense counsel we see the other two people i'm assuming the court is referring to the co defendants who ended up pleading guilty i would see that his attorneys argue that they were not truthful or that they were not truthful to the police during the underlying op investigation offense that they were not truthful to the police during their interrogations and so all to just say that the video is to be used to show that they were not telling the truth i mean i say that doesn't make any sense because these two vigils are saying she cares is meaningful adversarial testing or stipulations to the foundation and that's why i cited the people versus macarthur and our what the coroner effectively stood for the proposition as was the failure to object to the admission of testimony which  improper opinion evidence can winter showing the trial counsel strategy was not reasonable given the weight of what was he did miss a plea admitted and i would argue that our feeling to object to that is makes it so that it cannot be strategically justified in any way shape or form because already the trial strategy in this case was to show that my client was not involved with the underlying home invasion or anything else after the fact so that why would you then like me in evidence which could potentially show that when the state did not call anybody from the bronx in fact did not ask the officer how did you get their surveillance footage from whom did you get it from without putting sort of any foundation for it whatsoever and i would argue that even as the state in its reply brief kind of concedes that the foundation for it hasn't it hasn't been laid and there's no stipulation to it under under the record so what happened is the state news to me did advents as it did as part of its group and then it just comes in council doesn't say anything about it i would say that that is completely cannot be justified it's trial strategy because if the strategy is to say that my client wasn't there my client was in a part of this and don't want evidence that could potentially show that the argument with regards to the other three just nobody refers to the  situation where form and substance are at issue in this case and if necessary can read the parts from the record which i feel are appropriate but i i would argue that when the state all three stipulations are those three berg's the court then says so stipulation counsel says yeah so i would argue with that the stipulation is only for whether or not they can be used for impeachment purposes which is the credibility issue as opposed to purposes and then assuming to admit it and then not saying judge we're also seeking is in the for their substantive value or as substantive impeachment or seeking to impeach or seeking to it with them not only as it relates to impeachment but that judge indicates that i reviewed all three videos all three individuals appear to be relaxed they don't appear to be coworkers they don't appear to be threatened or tricked in any way so when when reviewing that it appears that in his motion for direct fighting the court is saying look i saw the video that looks good to me and since it is a bench trial and there was no additional evidence in the defense case in chief at that point i believe under the standards for out a bench trial a motion for directed fighting it's almost the same thing that the standard that the court is considering is almost just is there enough here to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt not necessarily in a light most favorable to one side what you're thinking of that so that given that i would see that the court considered it as considered only for that purpose just because the city could have chosen to admit it for other purposes as well and they chose not to that's not a fault that should lie on the head of the defendant if the state only chose to invade it for impeachment purposes which gas but i believe what the supreme court rules what i wrote what i would say is that is correct but the statements that i'm in are not those statements on the video which are perhaps consistent with the live testimony or not necessarily impeached by or in my in my principle brief your honor that we both inconsistent statement pork only those in consistency didn't should have been admitted substantively so i know you say that but i mean is there any authority for that  rule i would say probably not just because illinois only recently adopted those rules but i think the trend in the law this is we already had you know one rule kind of codified under one fifteen dash ten point one so i would argue that the rules which interpret one fifteen dash ten point one can also apply to th admitted if it has been memorialized on a videotape but i don't believe it necessarily changes the fact that if this statement on the videotape is not inconsistent with the trial testimony that question should be admitted as well so it would be my position there should seven charges of the law of identity theft which is clearly what did exist it would be used for that exhibit could not have put him at the home invasion of the house at all so it those that been admitted were prior inconsistent statements as substantive that so there was no objection to that if it was not the fact then certainly the defense counsel would have jumped up and said no no no this was not no no because he used these exhibits to show that he had a code events were lying and that was his whole point that's the only we could lose face get these three guys to be shown to be not credible on what version is true when you're going for it but on rebel well yes i see what you're saying in that respect in certainly and their argument is that this is only  understand you correctly yes he would have relied on the on the police interviews in believe those to be the more credible see things yes if you're just looking at that ability and if you don't do that right that these are prior inconsistent her that's what i'm saying exactly state's who witnesses were going to be who pled guilty to the erlang church in a certain prison sentence and it was his trial strategy if it was to prove that they were liars and he needed to maintain that course that they were lying he needed to maintain that judge these talking about coercion of the police or something like that and it's completely not corroborated in any way shape or form on the contents of the video themselves it's the officers testified to that stop that he never coerced anybody never suggested the names of my a determination the trial court level i think if we take a look at the state's arguments they summon up pretty well that he's on the video people identify them on the video and then the court can view the video itself and so i don't believe that the the minute show that first the parties entered the stipulation which the court accepted then the state moved information or evidence in as evidence they didn't say ah the court didn't move that those fifteen through seventeen  time it was only after the state saw a move wrong through eighteen is that it's did they become evidence the fact that later on some future date basically said the same thing doesn't mean that evidence which was in it for a limited purpose suddenly