section one or seventy five was enacted in two thousand and three their deals with lineup and photo spread procedures to parts of the statute are relevant in this instance section and a choir is that a eyewitness during a photo spread shall be disclosed to the queues or his or her defense counsel during discovery proceedings and section c dictates that suspects in a lineup of photo should not appears to be substantially different from fillers or distracters in the mind of based on no eyewitnesses previous description of the perpetrator or based on other factors that would make them stand out  state conducted to photo race lost the photos and thus couldn't comply with the mandate that those photos be disclosed during sco three the state also conducted a live lineup and it's clear by looking at the lineup that had received copies of those photos previously there is something there is a statement in the record that counsel says well i think i saw those photos early on in the proceedings because this was it was a long drawn out  about a five year process but it was acknowledged at the time of the hearing on the suppression motion that the photos were lost so while consul said that he might have had those photos it's not clear that anyone really had those photos as far as this trial was concerned because they were all it seemed to me if the counsel had the photos it would  that assessment was wrong and that the photos were then lost which i think is what happened all parties agreed that the photos were there existed at one time they were inventory by this yes but does that become an issue of no significance photos he acknowledged that he received discovery i think the state's later stated was that basically those those photos were included because otherwise the state would have also had there they would have kept police officer so yes it was it was the state's attorney's office that somehow lost these and to go beyond that point section c was obviously violated as well was dressed as description of the perpetrator was described by one of the eyewitnesses we also argue that evaluated the language stating the suspect should not appear substantially different but at a minimum his later confession because the identifications came before that and then everyone started pointing to faith and i mean we've seen in other cases that there are reasons why people confess  even if we get to the harmless error analysis we still should define a remedy for a violation of this right is that right and who should use it should it be in the courts or should have been in the legislature specify a specific room they they do point to the rules of discovery is this farce for section egg and i would suggest that really the only discovery sation that would be adequately his this instance is  suppression of the evidence because one style and if you look at the the state's analysis if ocus is on the due process argument word the defendant is required to show a bad that the reason was they wanted to take it above and beyond the typical due process analysis and the reason was because we're recognizing now that i witnessed identifications ar and i think there's a large body of work that recognizes that so the mindset of these things have changed and so what the legislature wanted to do in that in the statute was  tied in with the death penalty reforms it's all in the concerns that people were being convicted based on stronger witness testimony it turns out end up being false or unreliable and so a couple of those things were not done in this case and one of those is disclosure of the photo array and the other was not addressing the suspect like the eyewitness identification of the perpetrator  so so the fact that the legislature while they didn't lay out everything necessary they didn't lay out a remedy they obviously felt that these two things were and the fact that those the two things were violated here in this case others are wearing regular teachers he also stands out physically but dressing him as the perpetrator was described is something significant and it's really the only factor that the legislature specifically listed that you cannot do the others are coming back they don't make it stick out for any reason but one of the things they felt necessary to specify in the statute was don't custody somewhere within the cook county area go out locate them bring them in to stand in the lineup and then only if they still look like they looked when they had the photograph is a shiny mr favor with net b what would be required to make it any good think well i don't i don't think that that would necessarily be necessary to remedy the problem of him being the only one if you can say for sure that the photo array wasn't suggesting then you can suggestive so their identification in the photo array didn't make them later identified that both identifications could be deemed reliable since but and that i think is one of the reasons why the legislature wanted these photo rays to be disclosed because we don't know if a conscious transfer occurs unless we can say for sure that the first photo array was legitimately didn't influence them and didn't director i think there's all this if i search the record and i cannot find and if you are aware of let me know is there anywhere in the record that shows that the i identifications that the witnesses make of favor was that identification anyway influenced by this alleged long full photo array well there's no way lineup then it's going to be hard to say if the initial identification was based on a suspect photo and that led to the line of photo identification and then you could argue if you say that then the  today based on my picking the guy up five years ago because i'm shown the full rate right before i testify and that's usually how it's done and when you don't feel them a photograph of it right before they testify if it doesn't exist you're unlikely to say oh i  me place a quick defendant confessed three times to shooting deonte the last time was videotaped in details he went through the whole entire process of how he was involved in this shooting and how he stood in the middle of the intersection at madison and western and shot the fifteen year old deonte as he lay in the middle of the street he was identified by two witnesses that evidence of  overwhelming there for the question we're examining today is whether any error occurred that deny defendant a fair trial and the answer to that question is no the statute doesn't provide a remedy and there's no indication that it should it requires automatic exclusion of the evidence instead it's a trial court's discretion whether the evidence should be excluded and the trial quite properly x or exercises discussion in this in and determined that the evidence could come in as initial matter i'd like to point out that three people viewed the farther away mr christopher mrs christopher and mister i think his name was stahl stalling work  only to identify them the there was a discussion that the thought always had been disclosed counsel said he had and he said he didn't have them we this prosecutors  material at some point the cases were not severed and there were numerous counsel and it to answer a question i don't know where they are or or what and that is people look at it oh yeah it sounds like yeah because he said i should be looking for them but  know i would say they're not and you can base it on the record on the officers testimony that he looked for people the same race gender and age and provided them in question i not impossible to to to probe and question whether somebody whether it was suggestive you can ask the officer who's presenting the identification you can ask the persons who are viewing it did anybody say anything to you what what was it that made you pick the defend did not necessarily stand out these are young men that all appear to be the same age they're the same race they had the all the subjects said because defendant is taller and at the same time it didn't come right now i'm saying that that part of the factors at the trial court looks at when he's exercising his discretion whether that photo array mean a lineup should be suppressed and i would also point out that when the trial court was a exercising his who shot deonte and we also have the fact that neither the photo array nor the physical lineup ponta defendants confession here they were up police were already looking for him before the photo array he was not confronted with the fact that he'd been identified before he  right defendant is the only one wearing it but as i said it's just one factor the trial quote was exercising secession the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming for these reasons we ask you to affirm defense convictions most definitely i mean