please the court counsel as i stated my name is doug johnson i represent the defendant appellant david crable mr craig bill was convicted of murder initially and his case was worst by this court on appeal and he went to a second jury trial  few years ago and he was once again that i'd like to address my comments initially to the fourth argument raised in our brief which involved the trial court's decision to grant the state's motion in limine e to bar the conversation between david kraybill and detective christensen in two thousand and four this conversation took place a year after david craig after the murder and it's very clear that the victim was murdered and at in two thousand and three shortly after the victim was found detective christiansen and david kraybill interacted on several occasions initially there was a search warrant executed a few days after catcher of the victim was found murdered at david cable's house was where the several more times over the next twenty four to forty eight hours detective christianson ben spoke to david kraybill when mr craig bill bonded out a few days later so there were several interactions and at trial several of the statements that christiansen attributed to create guilt were admit these it is our position that through the common law doctrine of completeness and through rule one of the six these statements were not hearsay and they should have been admitted what happened in two thousand and four to explain what happened in two thousand and three to explain mr craven not acknowledged as the statement in two thousand and four explain what detective christiansen or sergeant christian attributed to mr craig one two thousand and three because it wasn't a situation where christians and said something like hey dave before we talk to you you said you never to do with it and now you're telling us you did or anything like that what that conversation and we have the transcript appended to our is in the record what that conversation was all about was christians and saying which conversation are you to turn to but they're both the same but two thousand and four christiansen comes in and says dave before you told me this dave before you told me this dave when we talk he might as well be saying david explain what you said dave shed light on what you said he's not saying what happened last week but by mr crane bill is arguing not that it's detective christianson statements that are important to the before the jury but his own statements is all wrong i never something that ok but it isn't i never said that he's arguing his own statements he's saying and i'll read them to the ones we take that should have been admitted just by means of setting it up i'll tell you the things that christiansen said such as c one fifty three so it starts out we talked about some of those things a year ago and if you want i can go over those things again c one seventy six listen to me i'm going to go through these are my own notes and then we get to see one seventy six seventy seven this is kristen these are the things you told me you even said that you and i both know that some time i'm going to have to face charges in illinois and you told me this too that your attorney  soon going to be attempting to work something out some kind of deal with the illinois d a you told me that too and this is what we take issue with david crable says oh i might a said that that might have been referring to some gun charges so what the jury heard was a list guys a whack job and he obviously had something to do with this is attorney he knows he did it that's why he knows he's going to face charges but what kraybill is doing is he's shedding light he's explaining in this conversation that he didn't know was being recorded and he's saying that might have been referring to gun charges something the jury had no reason to consider and it's going right back to the prior conversation and explaining it it seems to be the pr perpetrator might have taken a gun to the scene just for his own protection devastating testimony against a great deal because the jury's sitting there thinking wait a minute now he's obviously given a little bit of what happened here for whatever reason but if you look at the context in two thousand and four david says with regard to that i was given you theories i would we were talking about theories like i might have her something so he said tell the context was not dave tell me what you did it was quoting to david and he didn't know he's being recorded i was giving theories i was trying to help you out in the final statement i'll bring up christians and i'm from the stand said well david told me in two thousand and three i give you a piece of the pie i'm not ready to give you the whole the whole pot i'll give you a piece of i'm not ready to take that leap of faith and spend the rest of my time in jail and christ en in two thousand and four confronts david with that statement which was to the jury that's what that's all they heard about it but what david says to that is i never said that i may have said of that for example david says well now see some of those contain a brief remedy of of truth in it like when i said yeah i'll give you a piece of the pie obviously i was trying to help you guys out as much as possible but it's funny that you guys add like a word or two in there so he's dead just denying this happened he's saying let me interpret it let me explain it to you love me shed light and that is why i believe the doctrines are perfectly tailored to allow this type of conversation and obviously rule one o six is even more political because it allows is more clear that it allows conversations that take place at supper your position in your brief is that the entirety of the two thousand and four interviews should i'm coming in with looting his assertions that the police were framing him that this is all we are both in the first trial  this trial we ran up against a brick wall in that the only way this was going to get in was if mr cradle took the stand and therefore there didn't get to be a point where we could talk about well maybe you'd have to be in your honour's point is very well taken maybe there would have to be some reaction to the statement but certainly the points i'm taking of the parts i've highlighted should have come in when that christiansen is saying explain to me what you meant by this you said this to me and it's clear what he's doing and  out of fairness the jury should have heard what david crable had to say about those things because i do believe it places it in context and the state is arguing well this merely contradicts like in craig in however that's pronounced and they're saying this is like that case but it isn't like that case in that case what happened is the defendant initially talked to police and said i didn't have anything to do with it and then subsequently the defendant talk to the police and said ok i had some to do with it i know what happened i was there but i didn't i'm not guilty kind of i imagine i do believe that's kind of a common thing he fact this will show that i was abused basically that was his point they will look at what happened here and see i didn't say anything initially and then i said something so i actually feel the put in that i didn't say anything initially because that will show something musta happened to me to make the inculpatory statements and that's not something the doctrine of completeness common law or rule one of the six would allow that's just saying well trying to raise an inference that he was abused or beat up by the police officers here we are talking again about david kraybill explaining shedding light and telling what he meant when he said certain things to detective christensen and those took those three points to me not the entirety of his not the entirety of the statement and in those portions out of fairness it would have been appropriate for the jury to hear that and they could have disregarded it they could have again this guy's crazy he did it or they might have thought wait a minute there's more going on here than we thought and that i was barred we were barred from questioning christianson on the stand or playing in our case in chief with time i'd like to make a couple quick comments and two other arguments many people would have is you want to silence or there's only one thing you can do with it and that's kill someone without someone knowing but when the question is whether the the weapon or the silencer is something that could have been used in this crime i believe there was evidence that it could have been used in that there was at the neighborhood the neighbors not hear anything well that's and that i believe is incredible speculation upon speculation first of all and i wish i had the page number the record but i can represent to the court that the state can see that this was a isolated or somewhat isolated area that's from the state and so then we have to think in this isolated or somewhat isolated area is connected because well if he didn't use a silencer then someone would have heard the gunshots and they would have called nine one one and there was no nine one one call i submit to you that at this time of night or when all we know is night we cannot think it's even more likely than not that someone is going to ole i heard what could be firecrackers what could be a car back backfiring i think you just figured that oh well i think i just heard somebody killing somebody so i'm going to call nine one i think that's a real stretch is specially when we consider the prejudicial nature of this device yes if a weapon is we don't have to guarantee it's the murder weapon but if it's suitable then it should be admitted and that's what happened with the brett in this case they didn't find the murder weapon but they saw david cray belong to read a six manufacturers had could make this gun complex thing like i mean we have a real intricate kind of process we go through when we make a silencer fit operetta and i will also add that the expert for the state admitted there could have been a the the i think it's the expert is in the state has the expert the state is running all these tests and they'd choose to not do certain things the defense doesn't weapon he said that in direct examination i believe judge but on cross he said actually when the test was explained to him a test you could do he said yes that would be possible it would not necessarily tell you if the gun was used but it might there was a test to fire any gun through the silencer and look at the bullets and then fire the gun without using the silencer in see if there was any difference in what was left that that could have been done and it may or may not be conclusive and so in meeting  silencer was again because of its prejudicial nature in the end the speculation involved in whether or not it was possibly used in the crime i believe the state argued it's not unreasonable to figure that it was used in the crime but if you're going to enter something like that or admit that before the jury i think it should be there should be more evidence to tie it to show that is suitable and then finally the second argument which is tied to the first in  burglar there's no dispute he was a burglar but the court ruled that it was there was not a significant enough attack and that's written our brief but what happened was interesting i could not argue that the victim was a burglar and had hundreds of thousands of dollars  without looking at the other arguments you make just on this one argue with that the enough why would it to reverse because there is a prejudice the state doesn't have to show motive we all agree on that but a big when these coins came in why was it so prejudicial when the state was allowed to argue these coins that the defendant makes a big deal about the coins into things found in the car we're not saying in these coins he collects coins we're not saying in these are his it's high david kraybill to the coins in the car that the jury i believe would infer were stolen and it showed i believe the jury would infer there you go these two were burglars together these that's why it happened there you go these two and it happened in the rebuttal closing argument that question we had about why in the world with this guy kills like tang friend has to do with that stuff hidden under the mat that we've guitar you much of the city's but through the victim's mother's prior testimony got in that yes the deceased acquired things looked a pretty good lifestyle and acquired things so there were a lot of the coins shouldn't have been admitted the silencer should not have been admitted it please the court house or the trial court's decisions in this case regarding the mission of evidence was proper there was no abuse of the trial court's discretion in its decisions regarding the admissibility of any of the evidence in this case i'm going to go sort of in victim's car along with some other items some brings pended the coins that were found they were never shown to have been stolen but so there there is allow a geisha in that they were stolen there's never been any proof that those those coins were stolen no one ever claimed th we presented that during the on does direct of the police officer during cross examination counsel extensively asked him questions regarding the details about these coins that were found we never argued anything about any coins during opening statements and during our closing remarks now we sought to introduce coins there were also found they were unique collector coins and he was a collector o i don't know if he was a collector so i went back and found that show that he was keeping track of the coins here but i don't to be honest with you i don't recall that there was any testimony i do recall that the photograph showed that these coins were in sets and they took photographs that so what was admitted was a photograph of some coins that were found during the execution of this earth want to do with the well i think they were do because i think what happens is when you find these same based on the fact that these our coins and they are unique item what's unique about calling people collect klein i don't understand this uniqueness occurred because it's one of those things where it's not normal to find a clear mind in a car and you find the states currency that's usually a transfer of all money doesn't know a lot of people collect coins even correct so there is no testimony that the way they were kept was similar that the that there was similarity between the coins under the that the on that was found on the passenger side of the car in which the shooter stood and stood over the victim and started shooting at him and the victim's fingerprint was found on the passenger side of this card it's all connection it shows the defense that shows the defendant's connection you have to we have to show that this is relevant evidence that's what we have to show we don't have to show that this is the smoking gun out there that shows that this is to defend him but i don't see where the relevance is that people have points and there was no connection between the coins other than the fact that their electric going people lot of people have collected quite a bit it could be thousands of people couldn't connect with this crime is that what you're saying well i'm not i'm not but i'm not saying that  because we introduces that this is the most evidence that's going to establish the defendant's guilt of this can i question is whether the fact that if we find that the picture should not have been admitted whether that's a basis to river oh i absolutely there's no basis reverse and i'd like to clarify some comments that were made by defense counsel regarding the arguments that were made in this case regarding the coins we never mentioned the coins during opening statement we never mention the coin story in closing arguments the only time that we ever mentioned a client's was in a bottle argument and during were bad it was only in response to defense counsel suggestion is that perhaps the killer left these questions here and we wanted to make sure that the jury understood that the coins that were left in the car was not the smoking gun that was out there that showed that perhaps someone else had committed this crime so that's the only want that's the only reason and when we did so we make sure that the jury understood that we were not relying upon these to have some great evidential value that this is the link to show the defendant was the killer so if you look at our how ments in those contexts in which it was made you will see that there's absolutely no prejudice to the defendant this case and the victim was shot from the defense from the shooter standing over the victim which i don't see how he could have done that from inside the car in the passenger side that i'm not getting there if he was inside the car in the passenger side and he wasn't standing over  counsel you're the one who connected the coins to the fingerprint and i'm just agreeing with my colleague that i'm not seeing how random killings even if they are collecting points are connected without some testimony to this defendant the mission of the silencer in this case the trapper absolutely did not exercise or abuse its discretion and allowing the prosecution introduced this twenty two caliber silencer that was found in the defendant's home garden during the execution of the search warrant because it still was a connection between mr was a connection between the silence on the crime that reese used there's no question that a weapon was used in this case the defense bullet ridden body sure that up that he was shot several times with a twenty two caliber weapon there are also other twenty two kalpoe courts found at the scene there are twenty two caliber cartridge cases throughout the scene by the but if it's in his body and inside the victim's car there is also substantial of us of the that the there was sufficient evidence showing that these that the silencer that was used was suitable for the commission of the crime  said that because this silencer was threaded to fit the twenty two that the defendant purchased at the same time as the twenty two that it could have been used in the crime and that's that's sufficient that's what we have to show that the suitability of this that this weapon was used we don't have to show conclusively that it was you just and in fact the defendant stipulated to the fact that a twenty that he had purchased a twenty well that's one that's one link that's one link that's and that's an argument that we commit there's a reason the inference from the from the evidence such presented in this case now it's an isolated area granted read the bit where the defendant took the victim in this concluded regarding the hasn't sent us but that's that's what i recall that they are that the expert testified to that that that additional test would not have been helpful in this case in his opinion as far as the and just to back up for a moment as far as the admission of the silencer in this case he also the jury also heard that the defendant had thirty six hundred rounds of twenty two caliber bullets in his home at the time he also heard and and introduced by the defense himself that he had a menagerie of other weapons in house at the time so the mission of the silencer and defense counsel wants to consider it to be such a sinister thing it's really the jury was not going to be persuaded by the introduction of the silencer in light of all the other firearms evidence that was introduced in this case and partially introduced by the defense in this case as far as the defense attempt to introduce there were twenty first interview of the defend the defendant by commander christiansen in this case i would like to backtrack his defense counsel doesn't address this in his argument first of all when this was the trial he is submitted that this was in that this was an exception to the hearsay rule there is no discussion of the completeness doctrine before the trial court sobra here to determine whether or not the trial court abused the what the trial court found was because of we can get in the defendant's statements because they are mission by a party opponent the defendant cannot get his own hearsay statements then in the motion for new trial defense argues places the same issue and alternatively argues that oh it's also mr brander the complete instruction there's no argument there's no further case law there's no support for that at all there's no presentation of any support for that now when on direct appeal he did not raise the completeness starch and in his opening brief i raised the issue in my brief in order so that this court could have a thorough presentation of the issues in this case now for the first time in his reply brief he raises the completeness doctrine so first of all the defendant has to get over a huge hurdle that there is a forfeiture of this argument in this case he has not by the only rules about it that's that's what's that's what we need to follow in this case under the only wills you have to have a party has to have either or writing or recorded statement in this case what you have is we presented in a statement in this case but under the only rules you are not allowed a party is not allowed to under the completeness doctrine introduced in oral statement because i read your the rule when the writing or recording statement a part of the is going to spy party and adverse party may require the introduction at any time of any other public of any other writing well recorded statement which  fairness to be considered contemporary contemporaneously with it there's no provision in this rule that allows the admission of an oral statement but there's pete recording of the two thousand and four state that's correct but what we're talking about there is two statements where the first statement that we enter to use is an oral statement it's only merely a conversation it can be the christianson had with a different it's only an oral statement at the first time so both of the  an oral statement out there there's no and we didn't seek to and we can't introduce a police report we're not allowed to put in the deuce a police report and the fairness that the defendant obviously was taken in consideration when this w allow for oral statements to be admitted and in craig and then one case of the second district has looked at the on i dismiss rule of evidence they specifically said under the common law doctrine oral statements were made were miscible and now they're briefly i don't agree or don't agree i believe the coins there was absolutely no relevance to them and for the reasons i stated they were very prejudicial in the event even if that was allowed even that ruling was right that should have opened the door as i argued this opens the door then if you're going to tie these to my guy let me talk about the victim because the he's the burglar we know that kraybill isn't we know that and the judge said no no doors opened the fingerprint they were lifelong killer we don't know that the silencer was you his counsel said silencer was used their expert said i think first question on cross i don't know tell me of the silencer was used i don't know they have to show more than it could have been used i'm sure there are several silencers that would affect that fit the threading to the gun and would they have been admitted i submit they would not have been the justification for putting in the silencer no one called nine one one as i sit here i think to myself there was no one who took the stand and testified that they were a dispatcher and they didn't get any calls so the jury didn't hear any evidence that the jury hearing evidence about a call the nine one one aside from i believe the person who found the body but they didn't hear someone who said there were no calls to nine one one that wasn't in evidence and finally with regard to the rule one o six i don't believe this argument was made in the brief regarding only a political two oral statements if you raised it in your discussed a trial one i don't have a record cite for discussions it is it your position that at the time you were advocating for the admission of the two thousand and four state you argued to the trial court that this is necessary and that the complete did not use the term completeness doctrine your honor so i had term completeness was not used page one four eight two in the conclusion this was the motion was made i'm sorry the state made the motion seven points in their motion lemony completeness doctrine was spoken of in relation to other arguments but when we got to point seven and two thousand and four term completeness was not stated the motion was taken under advisement we pushed for it to be heard it was finally heard the last moment before christian testified christianson testified and this was stated on fourteen eighty two judge we would like to among other things we would like to cross detective christensen regarding this conversation that took place in two thousand and four in the short of a judge's because during the course of this conversation he recounts with mr craig bill several of the statements that he says mr graybill made to him that was what was said completely term was not used finally with regard to the argument about whether or not rule one of the six applies here because the first statement was world i submit that the it does because there was a writing there were the notes and secondly the federal counterpart i believe has interpreted very similar of not close to identical language saying that under these circumstances the seventh circuit has recognized that this rule would apply when there is an oral statement followed by a recorded statement and i also think the spirit of the law with the intent of the law would be satisfied if it were applied here where we do have a recorded statement subsequent to the oral only memorialized by those thank you