please call the first case as a court knows my client was found not not guilty and it just charged hearing in the circuit court that was preceded by two sequential findings first he was found unfit for trial and second it was the court made a determination that it was unlikely that he was going to be roger also probably aware there are further proceedings are currently pending in the circuit court that are related to this all that however is real pro here the issue here is whether hearsay testimony allegedly from a child victim of sexual abuse which legislature has within the scope of that authority within the compas of that authority to say this is what we're going to allow here and when you look at the discharge statute when you look at the specific language that the legislature use the destruction at you they said that we're going to relax that hearsay ru for secondary matters and it gave a laundry list of secondary matters where it would relax they are stable and when they do that they're limiting it they're saying thus far no further so it's based not on a confrontation clause or here based on the statu forty and not and i would suggest your eyes that we need to do here is just to look at basic rules of statutory construction and we're told repeatedly what we're told over and over again is that the legislative of the prophecy or the first rule the primary role is to ascertain and give telling you that this these outcry statements were admissible if the source of admission here is one fifteen dash that we look at that statute in the very first words are in a criminal prosecution which we know this is it because if it were your honour's point about confrontation clause being activated would be pressed it's as a supreme court told us repeatedly it's civil in nature so it is one fifteen to ten which limits itself in criminal prosecutions open the door to it the answer that's no based on the plain language of the statute we look at the discharge stature there's no statutory vehicle to let them in and frankly i don't think we need look any further than that primary role to resolve this case if we look only at that time or will the two statutes are telling us consistently one result trying to get to which is the admission of these statements and let me suggest your eyes that even if we don't keep or even if we try to apply the secondary rules of statutory construction we still don't get an avenue to admit these things to say for example or urges that that mr ra try to rewrite that destroyed provision to add the word only the actual rule of secondary construction that that well here is that last phrase express the only us s this lucio all churches listing of some things is the exclusion of others when the legislature in that statute said secondary matters and was that those secondary matters they don't have to add the word only that secondary role statutory construction tells us that the only is there when they list those things i say you may go this far but go further this is where we're watching the world  occurred two thousand and four the girl is three years old the state stipulates that in two thousand and seven after mr rader was arrested they interview the girl and she doesn't recall anything right and then in two thousand and ten two thousand and eleven when this case finally the girl says that they're both on the bed where in underwear and he is i think her work was pumping her his testimony has them both naked with vastly different details as to what happened vastly different these two statements don't correspond so when your honor is talking about is there corroborating there isn't cooperation because in your alluded to the supreme court's decision at large which was cited as additional authority i think the key point to laura when you look at that case is they talk about they say jurors well let's look at peping you're at it again from two different perspectives let's look at it let's remember here that we're talking about a guy who was on fit a guy who was suffering from a degenerative cinelli and just it just spring up out of whole cloth in two thousand and seven this is a life time don't they don't write their own that doesn't detract in a way from the corroboration rule that is essentially confirmed in both sergeant and more recently a lark that what if you're dealing with a confession and remember all the girl says he was on top of me are are under was on any humpty that does not describe the vast majority of the thirty plus charges here so those must come if from anywhere here since grandma can't confirm any of these she saw and she came in after the fact so if there's any corroboration it's got to come from the graun the girl can't corroborate that statement just corroborate abel's when you look at the destroyed statute i think it's important to note that the discharge statute quays the length of the treatment program to the most serious offense for which he's convicted because it can be depending on the classification of the offense can be assured is fifteen months or can be as long as five years to me what that means is that when you make a not not guilty finding your good not the court isn't just basically sitting there and saying i think something happened i'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that something happened i'm not sure which one of these but i'm convinced something happened he's going to make a finding as to each of those counts as to what happened and when you apply the cooperation rule if you're talking about m the child doesn't corroborate it doesn't correspond with the way i would suggest your honor the lateral wires i'm not saying particularly in light of larry that it has to you have to have independent corroboration of each element but i am saying that you have to have some  the last point i want to make the phone less but i want to leave you with is when i started out writing up the initial brief in this i thought i was thinking of this in terms of one fifteen dash ten and one of four dish twenty five as if the legislature hadn't really thought about the consequences of those two played off against each other and the more i proffer this argument the more i read cases in the saturating everything else i'm now becoming convinced that this really was a rational choice of the legislature made mr a goes on fed if you hold a one fifteen dash ten hearing involving sexual misconduct there's really only two possible witnesses the victim child in this case mr right but mr randall is unfit he can't really participate in that hearing and it's quite rational for the legislature to say well for purposes of criminal prosecution we have a defendant there who is able to work with his attorney will allow that kind of hearsay and because the defendant can't participate he can help us attorney out he's the only guy who has information might be able to help his attorney but we're dealing with an unfit individual the so their purpose in this is ask a judge to make a will liability determination which is after all what they're ultimately making at one fifteen test and here with only one side able to participate because the defendant is unfit that's a rational decision for the legislature  any other reading frankly would require the legislation to be written that is not a product of the courts that's a product of the legislature if this is wong then the fix lies in the legislature and not the court oh sorry for the question trial proof beyond a reasonable doubt this church hearings are contained within the code of criminal procedure and the purpose of a discharge hearing is to determine sufficiency of the evidence is there enough evidence is there enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt to essentially commit the defendant for the purpose of restoring him to fitness so basically it can be criminally prosecuted or if there is not enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt then the defen purpose is to get to the bottom line do we have enough evidence to keep this defendant so we can potentially restore him to fitness for the purpose of a criminal trial or if there is not enough evidence truth and acquit the defendant now counsel discuss d a lot about the secondary matters that are addressed in the discharge hearing statutes and the secondary matters specifically deal with evidence such laboratory reports reported transcripts chain of custody issues and i submit that these are all foundational matters and the reason that the legislature essentially included the secondary matters in the discharge hearing if you're on it there was apprehensive but there was testimony that was presented that before carmen left to go to the store that she bathed the victim earlier in the day she beat the victim than left the victim with be defendant in the home so contacted the police after she came home and found harman in the kitchen crying indicating something obviously had taken place called the police took the victim to the hospital there was a police report there was an investigation that was immediately interred in two thousand and seven when the defendant was arrested that the victim the victim will testify that at that time she did not recall the incidents now at trial all she was able to testify she did testify to  obviously what her testimony was which is not so it doesn't give every detail that was provided during the victims of the aside during the victim's view site she was very detailed about everything that the defendant's hyde's did to have done to her during the assault however i submit that she was a young child there was many years has elapsed from the time of this offense to the time it's just church here in actually took place and there are in two thousand and seven your honor to recollecting that some of the events that transpired in two thousand and ten when she testified she never testified in two thousand and ten that her memory was exhausted in any way during  what it was during the discharge hearing was very clear and concise and although did portrayed herself and the defendant both wearing underwear during the assault she was able to give certain details regarding the assault although not every single detail that was provided at the b s i which i also submit the vs side was done within days from the uk salt first says years later the discharge hearing testimony but none of those things came out until years later so the amount of evidence they can't comment it's a relaxed type of hearing it's not a criminal trial his rights are not at play the discharge hearing and essentially the legislature enacted the secondary matters again is a way all those convictions were upheld and in all three of those cases as well the victims some of the victims didn't even recall any of the sexual assaults that took place and yet those courts and addition to lara because that's the situation we have the victim never and based on those rulings and based on the evidence that we have we not only have carmen who testified very credibly the trial court found her to be a credible witness and essentially one witness to the case and  a voice to young sexual assault victims and it was a way to bring in corroborative testimony that the victim had complained someone about the insults and it would clearly not make sense it would be illogical to allow a fifteen  criminal trial where the defendant's due process rights all his rights are clearly at play but not to allow them to discharge hearing which is a more relaxed type of hearing where all sorts of hearsay and especially a valid fear stakes are exceptions such as one fifteen ten would come in and more importantly it wouldn't give the court the full picture it wouldn't give the court all the relevant evidence necessary in order to make a proper determination is there enough evidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt he simply with harman's testimony we don't even need the victim's testimony in this situation comments testimony alone is enough and people versus sergeants is dissimilar to the instant case it's the similar because sergeant did hold that not every single element of an offense needs to be corroborated in order to establish the corpus to loctite and lara also tells facts that undermines the defendant's theory and arguments  five minutes for just a few points and burglary for all one thing i just want to clarify for justice harris here here your honor was asking a question about the hearsay nature and it sounded like you were if you believe that i was talking about the hearsay nature of right what i'm saying is if the legislature wanted to open this court if they wanted to allow one just for the fact that he signed that they were not going to allow the outcry statements give him a greater right i don't think we're giving him any greater i think we're acting consistent with the vehicle that was created by the legislature that well the purpose of one of four twenty five is to determine whether or not you defend it should have these charges remain pending curious incompetency or let him go right so if he didn't if there's determine whether or not the did it but that he didn't do it and here what evidence was presented that he didn't do it what evidence is missing and the your argument what is in your briefing now is that evidence should be more restricted and discharged in every criminal trial so one fifteen ten in a criminal trial allows us then you see it should be allowed him under the theory he does have less it he does have more rights or quick creature of legislation the legislature got to say what's admissible and what's not and they clearly didn't indicate that it was admissible here because they were limiting the hearsay exception to secondary dominants this one is the limit they said and you can have hearsay and then they you're the doctor looking at the three year old what would you expect there are a variety of allegations of over thirty counts of digital we have seen is the vagina now that we have a long laundry list of a doctor and again i understand that dr what would you expect to find i don't know that the doctor find anything brought great that but so there would be no physical evidence no physical or the lack of physical evidence would actually corroborate what he said what in that effect ha and let me point out i mean the two final points i want to make here is counsel spent a little while talk about how this is analogous to the juvenile court and the juvenile court act again it's not a conviction it's an if you're dictation of a link with say a similar nature but if you look at the juvenile court actor's a this didn't happen these are things that a defendant can do that unfit defendant can't do and that's a hair that the legislature has a lot of split on the last thing i want to talk about here is the the state keep talking about climate all along corroborate