for said that the inference can be drawn by the jury when confronted with this evidence that its credibility to be question as to the truthfulness of that statement because he was f drank that is a possibility but i think the fact that it does could potentially cut both ways lends itself to the problem that we have here in terms of this evidence being brought in the fact that it was specifically brought in by the state for the purpose of trying to cast this shadow on mr rodriguez that he wasn't being truthful when he said he had a couple of drinks that he must've had more than these couple of drinks because what he's got all these  if perhaps there was the issue of any of these beer tokens coming from the actual stablished that you had that he admitted to i'm from maybe their view different story but none of these tokens came from that establishment and there is no admission o testimony or any evidence that was brought out that showed that he was at either of those other two establishment that base or any other day for that matter but the fact that there was those tokens were admitted i believe cast that him of being somebody who has the access to that type of money the type of person who would be likely to deal drugs that was later found that that evidence should not then brought believe likewise that there tokens in this instance should no one of their case which was a believe the aggravated driving of the influence of alcohol and they prove the elements of how three of their case which was the aggravated driving license revoked that the jury must find the defendant of count two which was jury must find someone guilty is such a strong statement and usurping the authority of will be judge as well as the jury that it was not able to cure it by the instruction i believe that the motion from this trial should have been what we had was a situation where the wife of the defendant was present with him throughout various points of the struck a day if not the vast majority of the day she was with him prior to him getting in his vehicle and leaving where they had been there just those bar she was traveling in front of him and noticed that one point that he was no longer behind her so she doubled back and saw that he was being questioned by the police and she indicated that she did witness at least part of the standardized field sobriety test the trial counsel in this matter did not call her now normally decision to call or not call a witness obviously is with wife of the defendant was allowed to be present at the what's your selection of the jury she was allowed to present during the entire process of the trial this is an indication that the decision was made well in advance that she was not going to testify no matter what i understand that there may be issues that a trial counsel may want to avoid i understand as was pointed out  that she would not be the perfect witness that there is the evidence or issue of potential bias because of the fact that it was a husband and wife situation but there's never going to be in a situation like this when somebody is out drinking establishment the perfect but if you're out of the drinking establishment you're with one of three people read it with family with friends otherwise you're by yourself where if ever is the occasion where the completely disregard a witness who could assist you in the defense of your case prior to hearing one bit of the evidence that the state was going without i believe incompetency as well as the prejudice i think the fact that he did not ever consider putting on the defendant's wife doesn't appear that you attempted to adequately prepare either the wife or his client for was interviewed at a certain point but yes i would agree that the fact that she was just however completely dismissed as a potential witness  with respect to the first issue you are here to take interest in whether or not troad judge abuses discussion consider the fact that what she was trying to say by she thought that she just didn't say well because he was drinking because of this is the who is guilty which is trying to do i think is just trying to avoid the verge everything was way too nonspecific everything just is so broad and so so nebulous it's hard to put your finger on exactly what the fended what counsel is really trying to hit respect to the defective representation council made a decision that the wife would not be a good witness mind you she did testify she did state field sobriety test thing is something that is subject to interpretation when you're one lakes in test you have to keep your arms at your side yeah can sway but then the question client's wife to the stands trying to contest based upon all of those factors i would still suggest that the admission of those problems was there and it was not