made several identifications and then he's  ever seen anything like this case i don't remember recalling reading really to many like this but the problem is very yours is the position right is that it will witness changes we can defend it acting is the examiner within feet of the law and we have other evidence that supported the identification earlier he was arrested immediately  afterwards he was identified seen i think two different with this is testified to that there was money recovered from him so there's kind of a you know a bit picture here and so then we have you know this change of the cation all these police reports being in his hand having them available to him with me and the address and so it's not exactly just a simple you know he's in it possible that when the prosecutor was arguing revival about intimidation that it was rather than saying that the defendant had in fact intimidated that he was saying that the witness felt intimidated at the time not necessarily because being definitive wrong but just the fact that it's hard to identify someone who's looking at the right things to me as a read through this i see bits and pieces of maybe different arguments but we'll look at this could be that the prosecutor that's all true and then here's where your life experience and common sense come in gordon had to sit there and confront him and then he said gordon had to sit there and answer questions put to him by the person who participated in the armed robbery with loaded gun looking at looking out at who knows now that's the first batch the next batch is heard in from the witness stand mr gordon and he sees the man that he looked at the man who is the fourth issue the one about asking for continuance for witnesses or because we can't find them the record we can't find any request for a continuance to subpoena witnesses i'm read the record ready for trial he said yes the judge said do you have your witnesses subpoenaed and he said no i think he then said something like they'll be here but then the judge said if they are now here are you going to record where he said i want a continuance to subpoena these witnesses if we find it ok how do we say that the judge abused her discretion when he said three times i'm ready to end it for witnesses after the case has been set for trial for almost four years can up can a defense attorney even get in the continuance and end i q the courts not abusing her discretion you can tell the reason why ok so are you telling us that if an attorney he asked for a continuance to get a witness and he had been representing a defendant and he told the court the d p for i'm is the victim in this case was brought up by the defendant in the opening statement and he said i will tell i have statements from this victim who says i'm not going to he's not going to identify me record we also have the non identification of the of the defendant begging to have the victim saying as a matter of fact that there was a light skinned person and a black man who stood behind the i saw the a we get to that if it's calls the allens then the burden is on the defendant to show that this particular error so impacted  have you found any date anywhere in the record where either or lawyer work mr shane then asked for a continuance so attempt to make arrangements thus resulted in prejudice the court also observed that the prosecutor repeated fully attack the professional integrity of defense counsel charging him with lying some s times as well as with trying to confuse and intimidate the jury in an effort to win defendants a little the prosecutor also misstated the law regarding the defendant's presumption of innocence the court also pointed out to the prosecutor's comments and this is one that was kind of significant about the defendant's failure to testify insinuation that dish will state evidence was excluded by defendant's objection intimation about the defendant's criminal history and suggestions that the defendant was manipulating his constitutional rights to avoid conviction in addition the prosecutor i think if that witnesses chose not to speak with defense counsel