courts follow them here in this case there are two significant errors that work together to deny mr with a fair trial and the first error was the admission of the entire interrogation video about an hour long relevant to trial court to make a ruling with regard to your site i understand the statement made it forty seven minute mark that's unnecessary  where the defendant was represented by counsel and entire interrogation video was nonetheless admitted against that defendant and including the officers unduly prejudicial statements that did not elicit any meaningful responses from the defendant  recent that has not to my knowledge on why should if i were the trial judge and i'm listening to this interpretation why should i be deciding is it necessary that the jury hear the officers looking for guidance as to what the standard should be why shouldn't we adopt a standard of hopeful and reject the standard of necessary because your honor in that and that decision  that the officers statements are questions that your friend should be hopeful if they would be helpful to the jury to understand with for the same it's remarks as opposed to necessary which is a much higher standard and incompetent evidence that would be helpful for a jury to understand but in the when we're talking about officer statements which interrogation tactics that i would have given great leeway and interrogated the allow all of those officers statements against it to allow them against the defendant would be unduly prejudicial and of course in certain instances it would be necessary where a defendant answers yes to an officer's question of course the jury would need that officer statement in order to understand that spot but in this case these officers questions and statements did not elicit any of these incriminating responses i would direct this court to the twenty fifth minute eighteenth second where any other possibility of him receiving these marks other than by your hand or your belt to you and that didn't elicit a response well then by definition it calls for a response i don't see any other way to do you see any other way around but it's not particular question your honor this is the same type of statement that the court and hartman found was erroneous that minute it not only evaluates the evidence that the police had gathered against mr wood that is unduly prejudicial because one  that it states that he's improper statements all of these are procedures whether it be because of hearsay or improper opinion or simply and most basically here that they are irrelevant and unduly prejudicial and their prejudicial effect how is the trial court to determine that there may not be some reason why he wants all of this and maybe who wants to argue that the cops were badgering me that they yes i made these statements but i made him only as a result of the und psychological pressure that they put on me look how many came after me in this video i was the trial judge in advance in the midst of the truck supposed to determine which parts of this  if his tactical decision is look i know i made a statement i know i told him i beat my kid i know i told him i went too far i know i told him i really didn't mean to cause open rooms i already know i did all these things and said all these things the best thing for me to do is alternative causes to those injuries and not the jury was unable to and by the time that the jury was able to receive mr whitfield's defense they had already not only got the state's case but the state's case bolstered by the no confrontation of mr wickfield during the state's cross examination but at the time that the state attempted to introduce this january twenty seventh two thousand fifteen bond hearing transcript this would feel did alert the court  to the fact this was the wrong transcript that the state was introducing something that did not prove that mr whitfield didn't or that luther did not testify about the accident to go yet i'm afraid you're out of will have whether defendant's arguments establish air defending cannot establish clean air in this case because the evidence was not closely balance briefly the defendant confessed to the acts that constitute aggravated battery of a child when he stated that he trial theory that involve use injuries were caused by a car accident was directly contradicted by end of use treating physician who stated that those injuries are not the type of injuries that could be caused by a car accident the evidence in this case was additional errors with respect to the waiver because it's enviable versus johnson this court examines the practical effects of the failure to contemporaneously and jack the trial which is part of the concern that you're on this very pressing with the find evidence and do that would be improper because says you your honor was noting earlier the trial court doesn't know what defendants trial period is going to be in fact here defendant attempted to replay this video he asked to multiple times throughout but had defendants requesting granted you be prevented from challenging any aspect of the video because it would be invited air more over and people versus cappie or supreme court noted that where a defendant question a witness with respect to statements on cross examination the defendant thereby waive the ability to challenge those statements on appeal he just twenty three excuse me twenty three thirty eight of volume twenty one of the record contained defend questioning of officer daniels on cross examination and in those pages we can see the defendant is asking officer daniels about the statements that office again the main and the questions after daniel's adds so the defendant cannot now complain on appeal that those court's recent decision and people versus lewis the state was then permitted to bring in extra i think evidence contradicting that statement which the state did in rebuttal it would appear from the state or from defendant's briefing he confuses the procedures affair whether or why he did not previously report the car accident to the proper authorities lou they responded i did i testified about it at the bond hearing that's the answer and that's a confrontation and therefore the s hearing therefore the state does not find any error with respect to the procedure they use and impeaching luthor in this case and so is the absence of the state in other words he was ask  and i believe that the defendant did talk about the car accident and that hearing however it would have been defendant's responsibility to present that that transcript and sorry about all that she was explicitly given the opportunity to do so by the trial or on the record defendant declined that opportunity and it was his his responsibility at that point and the state continued and pietschmann defendant could have undermined that impeachment you didn't do so even though he was explicitly told that he could and explicitly told how to do it and for these reasons i think that's not an excuse me for these reasons defendant feels persuaded that eric  let's assume for the moment that it wasn't true what was he supposed to be confronted with that is there was no inconsistent statement to confront him there was the absence of a statement that he made of the body  they have the whole transcript of the body hearing if they're going to confront him to show that so he could read it over and show that there was nothing in that transcript to give us to give luther with field an opportunity to explain whatever perceived inconsistency there  at that time i would later recall mr what you have to recall him to confront the witness and give him an opportunity to explain and particular is this case law that deals with the absence of a statement that says if any of this is required your honor there is an ink if there is an absence of a statement that is also treated as an inconsistency so here is here you've got some case law that says this is what's required to complete impeachment whether it's the says what is required when there is an inconsistency which includes absence of statements and here the need for confrontation would have easily explained that it was not the january twenty seventh  testify about the accident and mr whitfield told the judge and the stay that's not the right one it was the one and mark was really just lying was a few months earlier then the state was given permission to the court admitted that trans the fact that there was an accurate transcript out there that mr wickfield could not obtain or did not obtain to make the transcript that was admitted and read to the jury permissable it does not make that what it was or permissible because th opportunity to explain had the witness been given that opportunity to explain which is what played out before the judge and was never proven then look at what it would have said no it was not the first bond hearing where it was it seems kind of irrelevant that he didn't testify it was the second one where the entire purpose of that second bond hearing was to try to get to seek continuance and to try to get mr wakefield to be excused to get out of custody to obtain the medical records