the argument remains that it is too broad and davis the question was when to apply that to the statute and here is how to apply it and again the argument is that her window was rolled down she had a conversation with him and she had the presence of mind to stop and study the base of the person she was speaking with and she specifically testified that she tried to remember as much as she could didn't she see both of them outside  she felt the presence of two people but she never saw anything as her testimony as far as the nd time she's approached when this conversation is had there's only one person there and she said that she saw someone sort of that is what i recall the testimony to be the state admitted in its brief that the objective evidence here doesn't identify the shooter so then it argues that the court relied on the testimony to draw inferences but those inferences here were nothing more than mere speculation and the most prominent line was that based on the video the court determine if the person in the like colored hoodie was the person that put the fingerprint on that  triangle window and then determine that that person must have been made but the videos simply not clear enough to show if anyone put their finger on that or at what point the only person see johnson's testimony he called compelling but it was probably mistaken because of the stress from the armed robbery and that negates her testimony that she said she tried to look and try to remember as much as she could about the person she was talking to there's no evidence to support that i believe at one point but in his ruling he said that he took into account that or it was there on the forgery case and even though for him his testimony said that he didn't have a case pending when he wrote those notes that's an consider only as corroborating evidence as to whether or not this conversation did take place and his truthfulness before he testified before the court and then finally he said that he's going to consider the notes only for crockery and whether or not this conversation took place and what was involved in the of the prior consistent statement would be to allow to not have someone bolster the testimony so it kind of runs afoul of that three times four said he could not out for the accuracy and as i mentioned earlier at best his testimony was self contradictory based on this argument if the court does not find otherwise sessions versus the mine i believe and they're looking at whether the statute here and she'd that person then fair notice of the conduct that the statute prescribes and the penalties that would apply to the conduct and here we have a very specific conduct we have a st degree murder coupled with a personal discharge a firearm so they are looking looking at the problem with the language in the residual clause of the federal statute which is dealing with a crime of violence which was undefined and it would have left too much indeterminancy before the trial courts even determine change the thirty day of the supreme court rule outfit which would not be the same person that approached her the nd time who was in the dark colored movie and then that person with whom she had a conversation from a further distance and read you know he was self contradictory and the judge specifically made the finding of reason s and reluctance and that is why the court did not believe that this was a memory issue so little so his credibility because they were an exception true but the charge that he was motivated to testify falsely or how to research how the patient from opening statements defense counsel introduce the fact that there were going to be witnesses that should be viewed with extreme caution and this is on record pages report of proceedings three hundred and two to three hundred and three saying that one in fact whe jury and it's clear that every one of these people want something expected something would you anything to better their position so we know we knew from the opening statements before he was even called to the stand that this was going to be it an attack on him he continued into the cross examination talking about him being in jail which was pretty tough and you do whatever it is to help yourself and even though whether that is a judgment of him being credible is questionable it's not a clear statement that he was credible and again the evidence in this case is just too insufficient