many problems with the officers testimony so sort of left with what happened here what happened here is that a person would no longer had a felony conviction suddenly goes home his life change he has a felony based on this very strange story that an officer told you know the story is not  would have been handed over to there is no indication the record that the defense did not get the trial record did not get the rest report beforehand but you do mean in your did you reference that that the officer didn't testify that it was memorialized this or that he fluid motion but i did run the most of us that testimony with the states at the state only about this one read this and didn't have anyone to rebut it situ about anything that the defendant said there are a lot of other things they can sort of pick up on it when you're reading the record about it about what happened when he was when he was arrested i mean a defendant has has a lot of but that had a sort of defense side that you're right that we didn't go into that much on trial and on testimony but about having been abused by the place and this kind of thing i mean it's a very the scale it's sort of all around the edges there's a lot of weirdness about it that officer's testimony i mean you can you can look at what the judge did and see whether the brother has terminations seems seem based on testimony that was so improbable that it doesn't support a conviction again i'm under no illusions about what the standard is really hard but this officer is testimony just does not sit right with me we have this office of you know much car approaching the sky and telling was very strange story in a very strange way if i were to move anyone on the street who is telling me the strange story from such a strange innocence and we just don't really know what happened and so yes of course there is the duty to defer to the trial court but there's also looking at both the officer actually said and whether you would believe someone who spoke she was tireless only used car and said here's some strange all i mean there's a big difference between black and white there's but the question isn't whether it was black and white moreover it wasn't in the story you know what color the sat was and he said no but at the same time he also said it was a two percent so there's a major inconsistency as if this case is about an officer there being two officers but only one test by an officer seeing this young man walking down the street and at that point is when the defendant puts the g he saw the defendant put a gun in the sock and that's what he said to transport believe him it was a small gun it was a tube sock and i think that was the testimony was them it was there any testimony it was a test the judge said it was small exactly and so for the defendant it's a catch twenty two for the defendant and so there's no such thing as an officer telling a bad telling putting bad testimony because of the officers getting bad testimony that proves he's telling the truth and so it's so  exaggeration but but but the point is there that that that testimony is always twisted around should be used for that for the benefit of the state not for the defendant and as for the statement there is a statement in the record that this