asked the canines tracking abilities and the pass that the canine pursued were a key in solving the puzzle on the elements of the crimes as your honour's know be there the have to teach in fifty just under the first so there was no excuse for one to not to not exclude this evidence when the b ham has been there when the evidence has been be on for nearly one hundred years second wrong oh absolutely under the closely downs test the closely balanced test is probably the path of least resistance because this was the case where if anything there was overwhelming evidence in the other direction though the interview of the of the first fact that i would cite your honor says that the mean alleged eyewitness had been peach with her prior statement of uncertainty and also with her need for eye of glasses which was something that troubled the jury  of the only elements of the weapon and the elements of my identity was built on in this is really sort of a conclusion as to what i'm saying here i'm patrick to testimony on a new window and hearsay as your  issue which is the inadmissibility of the gunshot residue exhibit because the state did not meet a crime iffy she case that it came from my client all the state at the hearing on counsel's objection to match trial was that officer jackson performed a sloppy for the presence an absence of the residue shortly after the crime but then he testified handwriting the howard case instructs the x inventory number is not only the preferred way to lay a foundation for functional item and that the chain of custody for that but was necessary because as likely howard this was a fungible specimen that would have been multiple places and of multiple pound places and with other such exhibits that there were protective measures taken and in this case the only testimony there was was that the desk drawer was locked so there was testimony on that first part but then without a huge whirring number there's no way to track it and there was no other testimony as to what happened and where where it was there was testimony as to where it should have been but without that inventory number or some other ways saying this is the same exhibit we have we have unaccounted that the data tickler exhibit was tested west knapp contaminated at best but it doesn't say whose it was and that's the problem here is we don't know whose it was and then to add to the fact that it  guilty people talking act about how guilty people talk to their mothers their unsuspecting mothers and family a mother who believes in his innocence in these innocence and is helping his lawyer best to be this case so it's all about how understand the prosecutor used down to attack my clients here when my client who did not testify never put his character or his credibility in issue less tommies the these jail conver months of small and nears and collateral prejudice that is ample he pointed out me and in the briefs that could not possibly be navigated by this jury without the prosecutor translating them i urge your honour's to appreciate how incoherence they were and that they have no purpose for being presented other than to deny my plan which ri head walked around to the other side of the car to the soul i think over the door not basically still says something from the outside then walked back around the same way he came in the same way back to the shooter it and again it's nice because i find a lot of times i feel for money and when i actually doing these things i feel as though sometimes the courts kind of conflict the analysis too much think i can explain that quickly that refers to something where the it's collateral not a material issue to me so maybe there's an error out leading questions something is just someone important who cares these the weapon and the directly to the defendant no other witness was able every other witness west i saw something i didn't see something he to be the offender that was man asked the dongas the only one that could that could or again bridges which was so confusing that the state had to say closing argument that they had i never pushed her pointed out the diagram to her so she doesn't know what she's talking about basically that's the moment they have the stroke poor woman but the point being is that she and her testimony contradicted everybody else anyway so so the dog meat that the prosecutor used whether he was right or wrong it's a persuasive told the jury how significant this dog w under the counter it turns out back there that it couldn't possibly have come because because there was there were not expended casings at the scene and the gun under the carriage the pistol