No plain error in admission of testimony on competence of police officer in identifying a firearm, where a prejudicial inference might have existed that firearms were common in the area.
Rational factfinder could have found that the deft's statements were a substantial step towards witness tampering, distinct from solicitation, in that they counseled, commanded, or induced someone to engage in the practice.
Represented deft's pro se motions by letter separate from attorney's filing not considered.