We are now recording. Here you hear you, this honorable appellate port for the second judicial district is now in session, the honorable Robert B. McLaren resigning. Your honor is the first case on the dock of this morning is 2, 22, 0, 0, 0, 8. The people of the state of Illinois, thanks to colleagues being 7C Coleman defendants of penalty. Arguing for the appellate, Mr. R. Christopher White, argument for the appellate, Ms. Lynn and her. Thank you. Mr. White, you may proceed. Thank you. Good morning, may it please the court council on Chris White on behalf of Devon Coleman, the defendant. Following a bench trial, Devon Coleman was convicted of first degree murder based on two theories of accountability. Although Devon was not the shooter, the trial judge found guilty of intentional murder based on the accountability for the actions of his co-defendant, Philip Walker, who fired the bullet that killed the deceit. The trial court also found Devon guilty of felony murder based on the underlying offense of aggravated, unlawful use of weapon. A charge supported by the unlawful purchase of a firearm while underage and without a foie gras. Although the legislature did not specifically enumerate that offense as a forcible felony to support a conviction for felony murder, the trial court determined that the specific circumstance surrounding the incidents satisfied the statute's residual clause or what the trial court generously characterized as the catch-off final sentence in the definition
. Paranthetically, yet notably, Devon is the only one involved in this incident that it's not a ledge to have touched a firearm, yet he is the only participant who stands convicted of first degree murder. Mr. White, if I could ask a sort of a threshold question. Certainly. A self-defense available to a defendant who is charged with first degree murder. If the evidence established use that the defendant was committing a forcible felony, resulting in the death of another person, the self-defense even available under those circumstances. The most circumstances generally self-defense is not available. No. Right. So is the general question here whether or not this is a forcible felony or not? I think that is the important question here. The trial court found in fact evidence of self-defense that went unrefuted and nevertheless didn't really address that in its final order. It just proceeded to the forcible felony aspect, the felony murder, and determined that self-defense would not be available despite its existence for the charge of felony murder. We could have thrown any basis in the record. So let's take it through this. I think Justice Lawrence raises a good point. And as I understand that Aggravity and Lawful Use of a weapon is not in and of itself a forcible felony. Is that correct? Correct. Okay
. But the law also says that depending upon the circumstances, the test to be applicable and determining whether the felony, the murderal is applicable or not is whether the felony is normally classified as nonviolent, but it is under the facts of the particular case. It was contemplated that violence might be necessary to enable the co-conspirators to carry out their common purpose. I think that's really the crux of the issue here. And there are a lot of factors court noted that weight on that issue, whether or not the place was dangerous and the history of violence, the time of night, whether weapons would be brought. So what's missing from the evidence here in your opinion to establish those factors? Well, I think the factors that the court cited, those five factors, many of them are factually incorrect. Aside from being factually incorrect, they are factors that are involved in every illicit transaction location, for example, although the court here found that the defendant chose a location that would, I believe in the fund, he was wording here, a parking lot of a housing complex, ways to state quickly places to hide an area known by the defendant, not a public place where there could be witnesses. The problem with that is that the defendant didn't choose that location. The location was chose by the person who sold him the firearm or was robbed him, essentially. But perhaps more importantly is that it was not a deserted area. It is, if in some purposes, a public place, it's a parking lot of a housing complex. It's not, you know, some, some, I don't know, I can't think of something that wouldn't be out in a field somewhere in the middle of the night. Well, you're not disputing how you that this was known as a high crime area. Sure, it's also where the participants lived, and it also boarded the high school that the defendant and his co-defendant attended. So it's a high crime area, but that doesn't mean that these people went here because crime occurs here, and you know, that's where we're going to do our crimes. They went here, first of all, as I said, because it was at the very least mutually agreed upon, but the evidence seems to suggest that it was actually the person who set them up for the robbery who actually picked this particular location. And I think, you know, in that sense, you know, for the offense of or the felony of armed robbery, which would be a forceful felony, then I think if you're weighing that to those who robbed the defendants that that may be a consideration, but as far as the defendant picking this area in order to go and purchase a firearm. I think it's a little, a little generous to say that the location there weighed against and similar to the timing it occurred at night, but nearly every list of transactions going to occur at night. And it's important to note too, because you know, the idea behind the list of the activity is that you're not going to be detected, but it's important to note that late at night or night is 9 o'clock on a June evil
. You know, I think as we all know from this area, it's it's maybe even dust, but it's certainly not, you know, the pitch of night. But what about the defendant alluded to? I mean, it was inherent in this transaction that guns would be present to ring this transaction, wasn't it? Sure, they're buying a gun, but I don't think the, you know, if the legislature wanted to make the purchase of a firearm or anything involving a firearm, a forceful felony, they certainly could have done that. And they didn't do that. And the purchase of a felony per se. There's nothing here that suggests that these people in buying a firearm, kinds of violence. In fact, I don't think you're right. I don't think the legislature would want to go that far and make it a hard and fast fool, but the case law also contemplates you've got to give a consideration to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Absolutely. I mean, quite other circumstances, I think aren't particularly valid. You know, as I mentioned the night, the location, two things that weren't necessarily even chosen by the defendant, but to the extent they were. You know, their areas that are familiar to everyone, they're not chosen because it's some sort of isolated area in the middle of night, which is what the trial court seemed to suggest. In fact, there was evidence that granted it was after the commotion of a shooting, but there were hundreds of people on site. So this is not, you know, it's a residential area, which a parking space for some purposes would be a public place is really not some isolated area and to add those along with another one, which was, you know, money because he had money separated. That he was going to use for the transaction, I think is true, not only in every illegal transaction because you want it to move quickly, it's true, probably in a majority of legal transactions, you put your money for a particular purchase in one pocket so that you can do it quickly and not stand in line or whatever the case may be. So to hold that against them, in fact, the amount of what seemed to be his amount for the purchase of the gun was isolated to suggest that he did not anticipate or or my violence that he was paying the amount that was requested of, you know, the purchase price. And then the other factor of, you know, the alacrity is the court says of the defendant and his partners and opening gunfire. You know, to suggest that they shot the decedent and the co defendants with alacrity or, you know, synonymously a cheerful readiness is frankly unsupported nonsense. I mean, they didn't start shooting at them, you know, upon first sight, they began to feel concerned that, you know, perhaps they're going to be robbed, which parenthetically, I think it's important to note is this isn't even just their subjective interpretation that they may be robbed, the state's evidence establishes they were going to be robbed
. So as these three people, and there was an agreement to meet one person, the shankwan, that person is going to sell them a gun. The defendants then start to see three people surround the car and in shankwan was not shot until he reached into the car, grabbed the keys. In fact, not until after he grabbed the keys, told them to told the people on the car to give them everything and took the keys or he had the keys, which rendered them a mobile and essentially sitting down. I have a few doubts for the armed robbery that actually did occur or was going to occurred. Wait, if I get interjective thought what about the standard of review here. Because as I understand the proper standard review and its efficiency of the evidence is whether in viewing the evidence that the light most favorable to the prosecution. Any rational traffic could have found the elements of a crime and it is the same thing, same test only look yet the defendants claim a self defense. It applies whether the inquiry is whether the state proved that the defendant did not act in self-defense. So you've got the hurdle of the standard of review working against, don't you? I think the way that the trial judge set forth these factors is it's the interpretation of the trial judge. There's nobody's really contesting the facts as they occur that the facts that are in the record. It's simply that the facts that are in the record do not constitute a showing that they anticipated violence. And another thing too is being worried about the possibility of violence and having a gun because it's also not established that these people knew that that lightener had the gun. Lightener had what appeared to be, or at least the evidence suggested was a legally purchased firearm that he obtained when he was in Tennessee where he's actually a resident and was up here visiting. They knew he owned a gun, but you know, I think many people certainly know people who own guns and don't necessarily believe that those guns are, you know, ever present on the person. But to the extent he had the gun and even if they had known which again, there's no evidence they had. You know, anticipating perhaps are being worried about the possibility of violence is not the same as anticipating violence. Our position is that you're the offense of unlawfully purchasing a firearm essentially is not a forcible family, particularly in this case where they anticipate that that was the intended result. Because if you're going to use violence in order to purchase a firearm, they call it armed robbery
. And that's not what this is. This is simply, you know, through no fault of theirs. And I don't think there's any way that they could have anticipated that this was going to end up into a shooting match. It appears, you know, most transactions, even if you'll list it, you're going to go and buy a substance, which you're maybe not allowed to get and someone's going to sell you a substance that they're not allowed to purchase. There in every one of those transactions, there will be probably a heightened possibility of violence because of police officers shows someone else, someone may spook. There will always be that possibility of violence of a transaction like this, but there's nothing in this particular transaction that suggests that it was more likely that they were going to, you know, that they were contemplating violence in any way. So why, how would we ever know was in the defendant's minds? The group gets together, they go, they're contemplating certainly without a shuttle without an illegal transaction. You're saying, well, they had no reason to really know for sure there was going to be some violence there. How would we ever know what's in the defendant's minds other than the circumstances involved? There's a circumstances, but that's the point here is I think these circumstances do not demonstrate any type of contemplation of violence by any of the defendants. This is not, this is purely the purchase of a firearm and the court uses the, uses the factor that it's a firearm. So therefore somehow inherently dangerous or, you know, a gun being purchased. And so obviously they then knew that this had a possibility or I guess that merely a possibility, but they anticipated or contemplated violence occurring. And that's simply, I think an overbroad statement of what felony murder is supposed to encompass and also not not one that the legislature chose to do. And I don't know what's in the person's mind, but for, you know, obviously circumstantial evidence, but the factors that are cited by the trial for here do not provide that circumstantial evidence necessary to establish that. Council, you hear me? Certainly, yes. Would it be fair to say that if the trial judge's interpretation of the facts in this case replied to every other case where a gun was being purchased legally or illegally, if someone pulled the gun and tried to rob them and they happen to have a gun on them, whether it was listed or illicit. That they would always be guilty of felony murder because under the interpretation, the trial court made, they did it with a laquerity, which means they weren't doing this in self defense. They were anticipating and committing violence upon someone who's trying to rob them and the idea that, for instance, if you separate your money, that this is a criminal intent, whereas if you don't separate your money, what is it? Is that innocent intent? The findings that this trial court made would appear to remove anyone's ability to defend themselves, even with a bow and arrow because a bow and arrow is a lethal or an instrument of death
. So am I correct in my reduxio out of serim observation or not? I think that's exactly the problem here, particularly because of the very, speaking of specific circumstances of a case, given the very particular nature of this case where there actually is evidence of that event that you describe where they actually, you know, at some point here is these people approach the car. That purchase of a firearm felony ended and we now have an armed robbery and it's an armed robbery of which the three people in the car are not participants, at least as the robbers. So yeah, I think that would open up. That would be a problem for anyone who was ever armed with anything and committed an offense and something completely out of the blue happened to them. I got a question for I'm sorry, you can follow up. I'll wait. Oh, that's okay. I'll ask this Harrington. Okay, council, let's assume for the sake of argument that this is not a possible felony. Where is sufficient evidence of self defense? The sufficient evidence of self defense is that they want the chocolate found evidence of self defense and not so mavenants sufficient evidence. Well, an objective standard, the state established that they in fact were being robbed from the perspective of the defendants. You had three older men approaching these guys and you know surrounding the car and importantly again shots didn't occur. This alacrity that he describes did not occur until this, you know, he reached in, grabbed the keys and said, give me everything. I mean, that's that's the robbery right there. I agree. It appeared to be a robbery, but the deceased never, never extracted his gun from his waistband or his pocket, whatever it was, never, never did that. So how do we justify self defense anyway? Well, there's some question up there. First of all, but also, you know, it's like they did
. Well, the videotape was was pretty clear that he never drew the gun from the school, I believe it was. It's yeah, I'm not sure how clear that videotape was. I mean, it was fuzzy. I mean, granted it all occurred within a very quick period of time, but it's also the, you know, subjective standard generally of the defendant. And then when you have these people approaching them and you know reaching in the car, rendering them a mobile by taking the keys and then, you know, running off at the keys. And or that's what they were, I guess, didn't run off, but they ran off because they would been shot, but it had taken the keys rendering them a mobile and said, you know, give me everything while, although I made me a pull the gun, they certainly knew that he was armed in that circumstance. Yeah, Mr. White, wasn't there some evidence that they could view a weapon under these victims shirt? Was it some testimony that they saw the outline of a gun? Yes, I believe the public must have filed that. That was the gun they were supposed to be buying, right within some kind of extended magazine. The extended magazine probably, but it's just a side-supported out of his under the shirt. So I don't know, you know, as far as everything happening so quickly, which, you know, is just usually a consideration there of maybe, maybe observations are not correct. Maybe they're, they're tainted in some way, but there was a gun that they saw or what appeared to be a gun under his shirt. It probably was that one, but we don't obviously really know that for sure. In fact, it probably was that one because another one wasn't recovered, but it doesn't mean that they necessarily knew that. Have you ever seen any case law that indicates that when one is being robbed, that one has to wait until the perpetrator fires a shot before they return fire? No, in fact, I believe there's case law that deadly force can be used, you know, for fleeing felons and also during the commission of a felony, which this obviously would be, which is, you know, old kind of law, probably, but there is some justification. I believe there's like a guy she had one on that case. I don't know if you know what the case is, but I think it's a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, by his way of吉 Deutschland, by his way of love, by his way of love, by earned, by his way of love, by 접종, by his own people, by doing serious things through his adoptive activities. At least he didn't have enough corruption forош to fight, by his boy mistake son of cousin me just the first part of my life, but if you know what I'll tell about Br gern Hill's development to come and not anymore, even if you do have any money to build my life and live for Abdullah doll, even if you do have owner while the son of brother son of brother me again
. Be good because you are still a schoolboy steak man as well, you have no father in front of him in the schoolboys with a guardian cow. This is yourENPORTE sky. This is your self group child member and drinking water. That forceful felony, which seems to suggest an inequity to find liability for this defendant no matter what, because it's forceful felony, and it's sort of a description of why forceful felony wouldn't be, or self-defense wouldn't be allowed in a forceful felony, and then some more discussion about intent. And oh yeah, there was some evidence of self-defense, but back to the point, we're not allowed to use self-defense for a forceful felony. So I think that really is what the trial court ultimately determined here. Any other questions? No, sir. None. And? No, no thank you. OK, so you'll have an opportunity to make a bottle. Thank you. Miss Harrington, you may proceed. Good morning, Your Honors. Council may please accord. My name is Lynn Harrington, and I represent the people of the state of Illinois. Your Honors, the first thing I'd like to touch on is the fact that the defendant here was found properly found guilty of four counts of first degree murder. So we need to address counts one and two that the defendant was properly found guilty on a basis of accountability for walkers actions in shooting and killing the victim. And people versus Salazar, this court set out the law of accountability in the state of Illinois and said the state can prove a defendant's intent to promote or facilitate an offense by showing either one, the defendant shared a criminal intent to the principal or two, the facts of this case, there was a common criminal design
. We know your Honors that the defendant and walker had a common criminal design because the defendant conceded those facts in his testimony. He conceded that he and walker wanted to go purchase illegally a firearm. They were under the age of 21 that neither one of them had a Floyd card. And when things went wrong and walker shot the victim, that murder was caused in furtherance of the common criminal design of engaging in the first initial illegal act. I believe some I believe, posing council says it is brief, well that's not in furtherance of the common criminal design because the common criminal design was only for the purchase of the illegal gun. However, Your Honors, our Illinois Supreme Court has specifically said in people versus Fernandez that I'm just going to quickly give you the facts of Fernandez. Defendant in this is asked by co-defendant, hey, can you drop me off this place I'm going to break into some cars. Defendant says, sure. Defendant stays in the car, doesn't do anything. Watch as a guy breaking into the other cars. All of a sudden, a police officer comes on site, well, that's unexpected. And what happens? Co-defendant shoots the police officer. Our Illinois Supreme Court said, oh, yeah, even though that was unexpected, that was in furtherance of the common criminal design that defendant and co-defendant had to break into those cars. That's exactly what happened here. The defendant also conceded, he knew the place, he agreed to meet the victim. He had conceded that he knew was dangerous, there were a lot of shootings there. He directed Lightner to park into a dark corner. And when victim approached the car, he admitted the victim did not have a weapon in his hand
. And your honor, I also like to touch on with regard to the count one and two that there was not sufficient evidence of self-defense here. Illinois law specifically says, a person is legally justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against imminent. And that's the key word here, Your Honor's, imminent use of force. Charantine, if I could interject, but isn't there also the test? Not only, I think you stated F hard correctly, but doesn't the person have the right to use deadly force to resist a forceable felony being committed? With regard to forceable felony, Your Honor, the law is clear that self-defense is not a proper affirmative defense. So self-defense was not available to the defendant with regard to count three and four. So you're saying that why? I'm sorry, did someone have a question? And did you have a question or all stated? Yeah, so you, but if they're the victims of an armed robbery, don't they have the justification to use deadly force to protect themselves against an armed robbery? An armed robbery, Your Honor, doesn't mean that there's an imminent use of force. And as I put throughout my brief here, videotape doesn't lie. We looked at that videotape, I set it out in my brief, that we're talking about a matter of seconds. And that's what the trial court was talking about when it specifically said about the alacrity here. Literally, there was one second between the time the victim's body came out of the car and Walker shot him and killed him. There is no way, as a defendant, a defendant would like you to believe that as the victim pulled his body out of the car, Leitner quickly opened the council, grabbed the gun, fumbled it into the back seat, Walker grabbed the gun, repositioned himself, aimed and shocked at the victim and killed him. It's just physically impossible, based on the timestamp on the video from the high school. If I couldn't, if I understand your argument, any two people or more, who have a common design to buy liquor illegally or drugs illegally or stolen property illegally above a certain value or purchase a gun doesn't have the right of self-defense. If in fact, what they intended to do was swarted by an armed robbery. No, you're under. Actually, if you allow me, I was going to go through the self-defense elements that there are six elements to self-defense. And that if the state negates any one of those elements, the self-defense affirmative events must be rejected. And here, okay, the first one, Unlock of Force was threatened. There's no evidence of that whatsoever from looking at the video. We know that there was a gun in the waistband of the victim, but as opposing council even admitted, that might have been the gun that they were there to purchase. There was no unlock of force. If that's true, Miss Harrington, he has access to the gun. He reaches into the car, forcibly tries to remove the keys, swats at the defendants in the driver's seats, hand away, and he has a gun available to him. Does it matter whether that was the gun he was selling or some other gun? My point, Your Honor, is that simply because the walker saw a gun or the defendant saw a gun in the waistband doesn't give him justification to pull out a gun himself and shoot the victim and kill him. You know what I agree with you completely? If that's all it was, somebody approaches the car and walker pulls out a gun and shoots him, but he was in the process of committing the robbery when he was shot. Was he not? Otherwise, what's he doing, reaching into the car for the car keys? That's a criminal offense. We don't know the victim's intent, Your Honor. We don't know whether he simply did not want to get scammed by these young men and wanted to make sure that he got his money before he turned the gun over. The fact of the matter, though, is the law sets out the self-defense elements and they haven't been met here. Then another element is that the defendant was not the aggressor. Well, we know that's not true because the defendant was legally accountable for walker's actions. And he certainly was the aggressor when he shot that gun and killed the victim. Council, when a drug deal goes down, does the junkie or the person selling the drugs demand the keys of the purchaser's car before he will transfer the drugs to the purchaser. My understanding is they usually just demand the money before they hand over the drugs. And so your argument that the attempt at taking the keys wasn't evidence of an armed robbery, which suggests the contrary because most people don't try and take car keys. Forrest people in a situation which is evident from the things that happened thereafter, which was they were stranded there because the car was, the car keys were lost
. There's no evidence of that whatsoever from looking at the video. We know that there was a gun in the waistband of the victim, but as opposing council even admitted, that might have been the gun that they were there to purchase. There was no unlock of force. If that's true, Miss Harrington, he has access to the gun. He reaches into the car, forcibly tries to remove the keys, swats at the defendants in the driver's seats, hand away, and he has a gun available to him. Does it matter whether that was the gun he was selling or some other gun? My point, Your Honor, is that simply because the walker saw a gun or the defendant saw a gun in the waistband doesn't give him justification to pull out a gun himself and shoot the victim and kill him. You know what I agree with you completely? If that's all it was, somebody approaches the car and walker pulls out a gun and shoots him, but he was in the process of committing the robbery when he was shot. Was he not? Otherwise, what's he doing, reaching into the car for the car keys? That's a criminal offense. We don't know the victim's intent, Your Honor. We don't know whether he simply did not want to get scammed by these young men and wanted to make sure that he got his money before he turned the gun over. The fact of the matter, though, is the law sets out the self-defense elements and they haven't been met here. Then another element is that the defendant was not the aggressor. Well, we know that's not true because the defendant was legally accountable for walker's actions. And he certainly was the aggressor when he shot that gun and killed the victim. Council, when a drug deal goes down, does the junkie or the person selling the drugs demand the keys of the purchaser's car before he will transfer the drugs to the purchaser. My understanding is they usually just demand the money before they hand over the drugs. And so your argument that the attempt at taking the keys wasn't evidence of an armed robbery, which suggests the contrary because most people don't try and take car keys. Forrest people in a situation which is evident from the things that happened thereafter, which was they were stranded there because the car was, the car keys were lost. They didn't apparently have an extra car keys. So to say that the robbery didn't commence and the shot was done with the laquerity when he was backing out of the vehicle, fails to take into account number one that the keys were taken. Number two, when did he say, and I don't think that the video would display this, when did he say, give me everything you have? Because I think that's probably the best evidence of whether or not this was an armed robbery or at least an attempt. Thank you, Your Honor. I was going to get to that point. I appreciate it. The only evidence we have is what that the victim actually said, give me everything you have is from the defendant himself. And the trial court, as the trial of fact, have the duty to assess the credibility of the defendant's testimony and he specifically found the defendant to be incredible. He, the way he testified was to show that no one in the car the car was responsible for anything whatsoever and that all these things could have happened in one second time before Walker shot the victim. The fact of the matter is even taking the keys out of the car was not enough to justify Walker shooting and killing the victim. There's also, so if the state negates any one of these elements, Your Honor, then the self defense has to be rejected. And I believe again, the video makes it quite clear. So here we have at least three of the six elements have not been shown here. So with regard to the accountability counts, Your Honor, counts one and two. Under the caseloid, it is clear that Walker and the defendant had a common criminal design to purchase those illegal guns. And when things went down and they went bad and Walker shot the victim, the defendant was legally accountable for his actions. So right there, you've got first degree murder on counts one and counts two. Turning to this
. They didn't apparently have an extra car keys. So to say that the robbery didn't commence and the shot was done with the laquerity when he was backing out of the vehicle, fails to take into account number one that the keys were taken. Number two, when did he say, and I don't think that the video would display this, when did he say, give me everything you have? Because I think that's probably the best evidence of whether or not this was an armed robbery or at least an attempt. Thank you, Your Honor. I was going to get to that point. I appreciate it. The only evidence we have is what that the victim actually said, give me everything you have is from the defendant himself. And the trial court, as the trial of fact, have the duty to assess the credibility of the defendant's testimony and he specifically found the defendant to be incredible. He, the way he testified was to show that no one in the car the car was responsible for anything whatsoever and that all these things could have happened in one second time before Walker shot the victim. The fact of the matter is even taking the keys out of the car was not enough to justify Walker shooting and killing the victim. There's also, so if the state negates any one of these elements, Your Honor, then the self defense has to be rejected. And I believe again, the video makes it quite clear. So here we have at least three of the six elements have not been shown here. So with regard to the accountability counts, Your Honor, counts one and two. Under the caseloid, it is clear that Walker and the defendant had a common criminal design to purchase those illegal guns. And when things went down and they went bad and Walker shot the victim, the defendant was legally accountable for his actions. So right there, you've got first degree murder on counts one and counts two. Turning to this. This simple question, if the shooter isn't liable, how can this defendant be liable? Oh, Your Honor, that goes to the issue in closing counsel's reply brief where he said, well, since Walker was, Walker was acquitted by a jury trial, it doesn't make sense here. However, the caseloid is well settled that that has no bearing whatsoever on defendant's guilt. First, we have two different trial facts, one, a jury, the other one, the bench trial. So, you know, like Ksa says, one trial effect might have been more lenient than the other. Here, a bench trial, obviously a trial court is more knowledgeable on the state of the law in Illinois. Maybe a jury was confused about the concept of accountability. I'm not asking you about the distinguishing aspects of a jury trial versus a bench trial. I'm suggesting to you that in my hypothetical, the trial judge determined that the shooter was not liable for murder, but the accessory was. Isn't that an inconsistent ruling? Your Honor, I can't speak to that because it certainly wasn't the facts of this case. This case. I, that, usually that's what happens with the hypothetical is that it usually is based upon facts that aren't necessarily in the record. Okay. Point is, is it philosophically, is as a matter of law, if the shooter is not liable for murder, how can an accessory under felony murder or accountability be deemed to have been guilty of the crime? Philosophically, Your Honor, I would agree that if the shooter is not liable, then the, then the co-defendant is not liable, but again, that simply did not occur here. And based on the facts here, if Walker had been tried with the defendant, the, Walker was absolutely liable for shooting and killing the victim. Again, I'm like, I'm going to give you the side. That's the whole reason why we have severance of trials. An inconsistent verdicts, to avoid inconsistent verdicts, but that's precisely what we've got here. Yes, Your Honor, but it's also been well settled that you can't always have co-defendant and defendant in different trials, and because they have different verdicts, that would, that doesn't make any sense
. This simple question, if the shooter isn't liable, how can this defendant be liable? Oh, Your Honor, that goes to the issue in closing counsel's reply brief where he said, well, since Walker was, Walker was acquitted by a jury trial, it doesn't make sense here. However, the caseloid is well settled that that has no bearing whatsoever on defendant's guilt. First, we have two different trial facts, one, a jury, the other one, the bench trial. So, you know, like Ksa says, one trial effect might have been more lenient than the other. Here, a bench trial, obviously a trial court is more knowledgeable on the state of the law in Illinois. Maybe a jury was confused about the concept of accountability. I'm not asking you about the distinguishing aspects of a jury trial versus a bench trial. I'm suggesting to you that in my hypothetical, the trial judge determined that the shooter was not liable for murder, but the accessory was. Isn't that an inconsistent ruling? Your Honor, I can't speak to that because it certainly wasn't the facts of this case. This case. I, that, usually that's what happens with the hypothetical is that it usually is based upon facts that aren't necessarily in the record. Okay. Point is, is it philosophically, is as a matter of law, if the shooter is not liable for murder, how can an accessory under felony murder or accountability be deemed to have been guilty of the crime? Philosophically, Your Honor, I would agree that if the shooter is not liable, then the, then the co-defendant is not liable, but again, that simply did not occur here. And based on the facts here, if Walker had been tried with the defendant, the, Walker was absolutely liable for shooting and killing the victim. Again, I'm like, I'm going to give you the side. That's the whole reason why we have severance of trials. An inconsistent verdicts, to avoid inconsistent verdicts, but that's precisely what we've got here. Yes, Your Honor, but it's also been well settled that you can't always have co-defendant and defendant in different trials, and because they have different verdicts, that would, that doesn't make any sense. No, but it was your statement that had they been tried together, they both would have been found guilty. That's not necessarily true. It's just as likely they both would have been found, not guilty. Oh, Your Honor, I'm sorry, my point was to go to Joseph McClaren's comment about Walker hypothetically not being liable for the shooting. That was my only point that based on the facts in this case, and the evidence in this case, Walker was absolutely liable for shooting and killing the victim. Your Honor, Your Honor's, the Illinois Supreme Court is also held in people versus bulk, that the fact that one of the defendants is armed necessarily implies they contemplated the use of force against an individual, and they were willing to use that force. This is of course turning to counts four and five in the indictment, the felony murder counts for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. And though, although I'm aggravated on the unlawful use of a weapon under these sections, meaning being under 21 and not having a FOI card, is normally a nonviolent felony. Case also holds that if the test is for nonviolence, it becomes a forceful felony under the facts of the particular case. It is contemplated that violence might be necessary to enable the conspirators to carry out their common purpose, and that's people versus goals in the Illinois Supreme Court. Council, if somebody commits a retail theft and has a firearm on them, is that a forceful felony? There would have to know a lot more facts to the case, Your Honor. Well, the person supposedly had a gun in their possession, and they committed retail theft of say a gross of razor blades, which is probably a felony. So the point is, as your argument, if you apply it across the board, is removing the defense of self-defense because supposedly you're committing a forceful felony, because you supposedly have a means to defend yourself. If he had a knife with a blade that was three inches long, it wouldn't be a crime, but if he used it while committing retail theft and killed somebody, he would be guilty of murder, even though the person was trying to kill him. That seems to be what your argument is. As soon as there's a gun in the possession of somebody who is committing a crime, they've lost the right to self-defense. You see that or not? May I respond, Your Honor? I see the right time. No, Your Honor, actually people versus felt what they were saying is that the fact that you were armed necessarily implies that they contemplated the use of force against an individual, but you have to look at the facts of every single case of each individual case
. No, but it was your statement that had they been tried together, they both would have been found guilty. That's not necessarily true. It's just as likely they both would have been found, not guilty. Oh, Your Honor, I'm sorry, my point was to go to Joseph McClaren's comment about Walker hypothetically not being liable for the shooting. That was my only point that based on the facts in this case, and the evidence in this case, Walker was absolutely liable for shooting and killing the victim. Your Honor, Your Honor's, the Illinois Supreme Court is also held in people versus bulk, that the fact that one of the defendants is armed necessarily implies they contemplated the use of force against an individual, and they were willing to use that force. This is of course turning to counts four and five in the indictment, the felony murder counts for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. And though, although I'm aggravated on the unlawful use of a weapon under these sections, meaning being under 21 and not having a FOI card, is normally a nonviolent felony. Case also holds that if the test is for nonviolence, it becomes a forceful felony under the facts of the particular case. It is contemplated that violence might be necessary to enable the conspirators to carry out their common purpose, and that's people versus goals in the Illinois Supreme Court. Council, if somebody commits a retail theft and has a firearm on them, is that a forceful felony? There would have to know a lot more facts to the case, Your Honor. Well, the person supposedly had a gun in their possession, and they committed retail theft of say a gross of razor blades, which is probably a felony. So the point is, as your argument, if you apply it across the board, is removing the defense of self-defense because supposedly you're committing a forceful felony, because you supposedly have a means to defend yourself. If he had a knife with a blade that was three inches long, it wouldn't be a crime, but if he used it while committing retail theft and killed somebody, he would be guilty of murder, even though the person was trying to kill him. That seems to be what your argument is. As soon as there's a gun in the possession of somebody who is committing a crime, they've lost the right to self-defense. You see that or not? May I respond, Your Honor? I see the right time. No, Your Honor, actually people versus felt what they were saying is that the fact that you were armed necessarily implies that they contemplated the use of force against an individual, but you have to look at the facts of every single case of each individual case. And that's exactly what the trial court did here, Your Honor. And there were a lot of reasonable inferences that could be made and were properly made by the trial court to find that this was indeed a forcible felony to support the finding guilty of first degree murder. We've got the fact that the defendant directed lightner Paul in this dark part of the parking space. He admitted that he knew that the parking lot was a dangerous area and that there were a lot of shootings there. He had over $700 in his pockets, which were divided. And I think the trial court could make a reasonable inference that they were divided because he was going to give the, I'm sorry, Shakwan, a certain amount of money for the gun and he didn't want to see him pulling out a lot of $700 because he didn't want things to go down bad. And obviously as the trial court said, the defendant knew that the seller had a firearm because that's why they were there. And also, so it's a very common sense reasonable inference that lightner was on that the defendant and Walker knew that lightner was armed. He defended this was his cousin. He knew we had a gun. He, it doesn't, his explanation of can you drive me 35 minutes to my house from Maywood there because I need to change clothes. Now can you drive me to this dark parking lot? And let's sit here for six to 10 minutes, but not talk at all about why we're here or what we're doing. It was all these facts together, Your Honor, that showed that clearly the defendant and Walker contemplated that violence could have occurred and that's exactly what did. And for all these reasons, Your Honor, the people respectfully request that this reviewing court affirmed defendant's convictions for first degree murder on all four counts. Thank you. Any other questions? No sir, thank you. I think I have one. What is the implication that the gun wasn't on the person of any of the defendants until such time as from what I gather since the victim had already obtained the key to the car that the owner of the gun didn't make an attempt to acquire the firearm until after the keys were taken
. And that's exactly what the trial court did here, Your Honor. And there were a lot of reasonable inferences that could be made and were properly made by the trial court to find that this was indeed a forcible felony to support the finding guilty of first degree murder. We've got the fact that the defendant directed lightner Paul in this dark part of the parking space. He admitted that he knew that the parking lot was a dangerous area and that there were a lot of shootings there. He had over $700 in his pockets, which were divided. And I think the trial court could make a reasonable inference that they were divided because he was going to give the, I'm sorry, Shakwan, a certain amount of money for the gun and he didn't want to see him pulling out a lot of $700 because he didn't want things to go down bad. And obviously as the trial court said, the defendant knew that the seller had a firearm because that's why they were there. And also, so it's a very common sense reasonable inference that lightner was on that the defendant and Walker knew that lightner was armed. He defended this was his cousin. He knew we had a gun. He, it doesn't, his explanation of can you drive me 35 minutes to my house from Maywood there because I need to change clothes. Now can you drive me to this dark parking lot? And let's sit here for six to 10 minutes, but not talk at all about why we're here or what we're doing. It was all these facts together, Your Honor, that showed that clearly the defendant and Walker contemplated that violence could have occurred and that's exactly what did. And for all these reasons, Your Honor, the people respectfully request that this reviewing court affirmed defendant's convictions for first degree murder on all four counts. Thank you. Any other questions? No sir, thank you. I think I have one. What is the implication that the gun wasn't on the person of any of the defendants until such time as from what I gather since the victim had already obtained the key to the car that the owner of the gun didn't make an attempt to acquire the firearm until after the keys were taken. So how does this establish intent to use a gun when it's in a glove box, so to speak, or the council? You know, it was in the center council, I think the evidence was. Yes, Your Honor, that is correct. That actually goes back to the video, Your Honor, and it shows that literally all this began at nine o'apm, at 14 seconds, the victim approaches the car. At 17 seconds, the victim is at the passenger door and the defendant says he doesn't have a gun in his hand at that point. 19 seconds, he opens the car door, no gun. 22 seconds, victim leans into the car. 28 seconds, top portion of victim's body is in the car, reaching for the car fog. So we know at that point when he's reaching for the car fog, it's impossible for a lightener to have picked up the council and grabbed the gun because the victim's body is laying over it. 31 seconds, the victim's body gets out of the car. The video shows no gun. 32 seconds, the victim is shot. There's no physical possible way in that one second. Lightener could have opened up his council, got the gun, fumbled it, the vaccine, Walker grabs it, turns, aims at the victim, shoots him and kills him. That the reasonable inference, Your Honor, is that Walker had that gun ready to go. That's what they were talking about. This goes bad, these guys trying to rob us. Boom, we're gonna kill him. Any other questions? No
. So how does this establish intent to use a gun when it's in a glove box, so to speak, or the council? You know, it was in the center council, I think the evidence was. Yes, Your Honor, that is correct. That actually goes back to the video, Your Honor, and it shows that literally all this began at nine o'apm, at 14 seconds, the victim approaches the car. At 17 seconds, the victim is at the passenger door and the defendant says he doesn't have a gun in his hand at that point. 19 seconds, he opens the car door, no gun. 22 seconds, victim leans into the car. 28 seconds, top portion of victim's body is in the car, reaching for the car fog. So we know at that point when he's reaching for the car fog, it's impossible for a lightener to have picked up the council and grabbed the gun because the victim's body is laying over it. 31 seconds, the victim's body gets out of the car. The video shows no gun. 32 seconds, the victim is shot. There's no physical possible way in that one second. Lightener could have opened up his council, got the gun, fumbled it, the vaccine, Walker grabs it, turns, aims at the victim, shoots him and kills him. That the reasonable inference, Your Honor, is that Walker had that gun ready to go. That's what they were talking about. This goes bad, these guys trying to rob us. Boom, we're gonna kill him. Any other questions? No. Thank you. Mr. White, you may proceed. Thank you, just briefly. First I wanted to emphasize, the weakness or the court's finding of credibility questions with the defendant's statements, does not render the state's case more believable or more credible or prove those factors. Case lies replete with situations where eyewitnesses and participants are given great differences. Things happen quickly. There's any number of reasons. Maybe he's protecting his friend because he thinks he could still get in trouble for self-defense. Whatever it could be, that does not then create reasonable inferences that can be made to support the elements that the state is required to prove. And as far as the state's saying that the only evidence that Shankwan said, give me the gun or give me everything you have. Have brothers the defendant's testimony. Well, that's not true. It's completely consistent. As you say, you can look at anything in the record. It's completely consistent with the state's own evidence that this clearly was going to be a robbery. There's no question of this. And along those lines, things, quote, didn't go bad
. Thank you. Mr. White, you may proceed. Thank you, just briefly. First I wanted to emphasize, the weakness or the court's finding of credibility questions with the defendant's statements, does not render the state's case more believable or more credible or prove those factors. Case lies replete with situations where eyewitnesses and participants are given great differences. Things happen quickly. There's any number of reasons. Maybe he's protecting his friend because he thinks he could still get in trouble for self-defense. Whatever it could be, that does not then create reasonable inferences that can be made to support the elements that the state is required to prove. And as far as the state's saying that the only evidence that Shankwan said, give me the gun or give me everything you have. Have brothers the defendant's testimony. Well, that's not true. It's completely consistent. As you say, you can look at anything in the record. It's completely consistent with the state's own evidence that this clearly was going to be a robbery. There's no question of this. And along those lines, things, quote, didn't go bad. This became an armed robbery. This had nothing to do with the defendant and his co-defendants. This was never going to be the unlawful purchase of a firearm. And to the extent that it was or that they believed it was, that ended as soon as these three approached the cars. Easty began approaching the car with what we know to be the intent to commit an armed robbery. That ended whatever criminal design that these people had, that these defendants had. And from that point forward, they were using self-defense or as just a thousand points out, if they very least, it was stopping a forceful felony, which isn't exactly self-defense, but it is another way in which deadly force can be used. And it's clearly at least that. And I think the evidence certainly shows its self-defense as well. And certainly that grainy quick video does not establish that that was not self-defense. And if anything, it goes to what the trial court found that there is evidence of self-defense. So I think that, you know, and once again, just because they're worried about the possibility that this could go wrong, does not mean that they contemplated violence being used, particularly at the outset when, you know, this was planned. And, you know, as Council just said, you know, if what they're doing is holding onto a gun and saying, if these guys rob us, you know, we'll shoot them. Well, that pretty much is the definition of self-defense. So if that in fact is what was happening, then they aren't justifying and using it. And they should not be precluded because this was not a forceful felony in this case. Would it be safe to say that the interpretation that the trial court gave to the facts in this case is that if they attempted to defend themselves, they were committing a forceful felony, which would then preclude the application of self-defense. I think in a nutshell, that's what it is
. This became an armed robbery. This had nothing to do with the defendant and his co-defendants. This was never going to be the unlawful purchase of a firearm. And to the extent that it was or that they believed it was, that ended as soon as these three approached the cars. Easty began approaching the car with what we know to be the intent to commit an armed robbery. That ended whatever criminal design that these people had, that these defendants had. And from that point forward, they were using self-defense or as just a thousand points out, if they very least, it was stopping a forceful felony, which isn't exactly self-defense, but it is another way in which deadly force can be used. And it's clearly at least that. And I think the evidence certainly shows its self-defense as well. And certainly that grainy quick video does not establish that that was not self-defense. And if anything, it goes to what the trial court found that there is evidence of self-defense. So I think that, you know, and once again, just because they're worried about the possibility that this could go wrong, does not mean that they contemplated violence being used, particularly at the outset when, you know, this was planned. And, you know, as Council just said, you know, if what they're doing is holding onto a gun and saying, if these guys rob us, you know, we'll shoot them. Well, that pretty much is the definition of self-defense. So if that in fact is what was happening, then they aren't justifying and using it. And they should not be precluded because this was not a forceful felony in this case. Would it be safe to say that the interpretation that the trial court gave to the facts in this case is that if they attempted to defend themselves, they were committing a forceful felony, which would then preclude the application of self-defense. I think in a nutshell, that's what it is. He didn't get to sort of that sophisticated analysis, but really the sort of the elephant in the room here is that violence occurred and it occurred the violence, you know, the gunfire violence, not the armed robbery violence, because there's really more than a one-active violence here, but the gunfire violence occurred by those people who plan to purchase a firearm unlawfully. So if we plan to buy a gun and there's a dead guy, we have to find somebody accountable. I mean, I think that really points to the sort of to use his word, a laxity of the court's decision here and determining that the defendant has to be liable and finding, you know, sort of ignoring the intentional murder part that council's spent, you know, the first five argument with the, you know, there is evidence of self-defense here, but moving along to forceful felony, he can't use it when it comes to the charge of felony murder. You know, seems a little disingenuous somewhat and I don't think it's supported by the law. And for, you know, for that reason, we ask that, you know, you be reverse his convictions. Are you done? I am, yes. Any questions? No, thank you. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. Thank you. We'll take the case under advisement and render a decision in apt time. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Great arguments. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Marshall, you may close out the proceedings