this day and initially the state asked that the trial judge allowed these statements in under the statute hearsay exception for intentional murder of a witness which was an act in acted in october of two thousand and eight th he had not because he had rules under the statute and therefore basically was precluded from ruling on the common law doctrine but you still do the rule to move reconsider religion because you want to yes but because this will crack because the statute does provide that the common law doctrine is still in a fact however because the common law doctrine had not been defined in there were many questions that were left open there was really nothing to tyrian all of that not being reliable as to time content and certain sought startling stances on the statement and it was unclear at that time if the common law would have allowed that in without the liability reliability or any other objections he has to any of these statements prior to trial this is just based solely on whether they should be included as hearsay and they shouldn't be under the common law d requires th case that this court should consider the change in law to be a material change in fact it specially considering the fact that a change in the law is always something that a child judge should consider in a motion for reconsideration and which work would you see was the state of the law arguably of the com all before the hearing to rule it was entirely unclear and i believe that based on the trial judge's ruling requiring liability determination some states sad that it was not a hearsay exception song course on their intent would not be shown so there in illinois had not yet said anything about these particular issues that should have it making its determination i believe that that's where the abuse of discretion exists the trial judge was tall pointed out specific factors like similarities and asked for the other crimes evidence and every time the prosecutor cannot be controlled solely by that factor and that's exactly what the trial judge did in this case so i believe the abuse of discretion to show by the fact that he did not consider what the appropriate that the appropriate fact is that he should up and make that determination judge would have done it the financial hearing were set forth in terms of how possibilities and probabilities the her or her own record is in separate panics and if you look at the actual findings that she make and she didn't make fine is like conclusions that believe the only statute she was referring to she referred to her order would have been the child support issue but the child judge believe she would be referring to a hole in the divorce  judge would make or again for example kathleen savio was a candidate for reviewable in rehabilitative maintenance and in not commensurate with the standard of living established by the parties during the course of the marriage instead we refer to the particular orders were proposed or is it you believe the child would have made were made in terms of possibilities and probabilities that it was not speculative and again i think that it would have aided the jury in this case and understanding what was potentially at stake in the statute the statute governs in my view because they wrote the statute final orders that are more days later they come in and they say harrison changed the landscape which it did in fact i watched the hanson arguments on the web recently i reviewed the breeze and the lawyer hasn't conceded the reliability has been a factor that the judge does not have to decide additional indications of reliability not admissible that's what they said in that case because they didn't want to join to determine and i'll read you the quote that no two judges may strip the defendant of a right to the constitution deems essential to a fair trial on the basis of a prior fifth amendment if i don't have a motion to suppress and i was in a motion to suppress statements or washer arrest my client the defendant can testify and he's got judicially protected rights they can't take what that's the difference here you've got a single proceed you've got a single missing person kills someone's going to testify against your drug case and you pay off the witness so they don't come to pour you forfeited your right to confront that w if you look at it on the guiding hand should the court held that by killing victim defended forfeited right to cross examine victim regarding statement she previously made this is a dead person right to defend her sister the defendant threatened to kill the victim if is different if you look at many of the statements they now want to admit here where she said she says if anything happens to me drew did it that's a very different kind of statement that's up a statement by her son her good diction a future how many people are is a hearsay exception and the conversation costs not triggered because there's no requirement reliability they also say they did not testimonial evidence is relevant and to be considered in steadily the only talked  will be admissible in the sauce for a murder trial that's quite different than the than the picture that is being painted by the defense they've met their mission it will for me six in their in their motion and they completely mist clearly exclusion of testimonial with regards to the judge the issue was brought before judge white by the defense counsel initially said we didn't ask for it and then he made the comment stand crossed the common law i'm not making a decision that trial that's something else that's another challenge we have to face but what we're seeing here is this this final reliability was not necessary and that these statements should be an exception to the hearsay rule on the forfeiture my wrongdoing theory and then it's  you know i read those cases and i know that that's true all we had a case right on point was twenty years since the fact that certainly that was it admissible also he said it doesn't apply when it's a different victim wrong there's there's case law clearly on that point so that there's a clear misstatement of the law in this decision on the record and we would ask the court to consider that and decide whether there was abuse of discretion who have a difficult job something solid to hang on to when they're when they're facing this common law doctor but we also knew that we were going to be one hundred percent honest and story language that's why we put in in section g the collar any