so the st case we have is trevelyan v rocky you we have a representative from the allegheny district attorney's office by way of video can you hear some asperity yes i can thank you no thank you essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt so other than the fingerprint on the envelope what connected him to the crime your honor that i would submit that is the only evidence that connected mr two billion to the crime when you look at the evidence as a whole that was presented to the state court there is evidence that someone came into the rainbow apparel store carrying a folder containing mr trevelyan's fingerprints that person rob to safes that were known only to the managers assistant managers the robber knew that there was a back exit and water had to get away car waiting for him very important in his case is the fact that this folder but also the evidence  robber was wearing gloves he was covered head to toe is described by the victim in winter clothing she could not identify his race if he weren't wearing gloves one would think that other shootings use she said she saw his voice sounded like someone who was af act when she was asked directly is there anything that would suggest he was black or hispanic she said well yeah maybe his voice might have indicated he was african american but there was no indication that he saw his skin which certainly would have been the evidence was that he grabbed her several times he held a gun in his hand he grabbed her by the shorter if you weren't wearing gloves one would think should have said well based upon the color of his hands again the evidence i think suggests very clearly that this robber was covered completely top to bottom places i think it it's not unreasonable to think that someone could pick up a folder he left behind by someone else or not it in a situation where the papers with his fingerprints had perhaps  court piece of sheet metal that was used to block the entrance to the facility that was burglarized in that particular case which was it here ten feet above the ground this is something that is very to uphold this conviction would be the equivalent of saying that any time someone's fingerprints and nothing else is found is carried into a crime scene by the perpetrator that's sufficient to show to look at this sufficiency of the evidence question under ed just doesn't seem it doesn't fit from what you're on i would ask you to look at the again the evidence that was presented to the court and in particular if you look at the case if one looks at those facts and substitutes the robber for every time the court refers to trivially and with the exception of his fingerprints being on the folder mostly there is very that's the only evidence connecting him to the crime in fact the description given by the so eye witness victim based upon her and she said she could clearly see the robbers she was standing and they were both standing facing her height she also testified that she so close and she's very good at estimating people's body weights and what not estimated was her height that's not the record billion so not only do we have only his fingerprints on a piece of property was carried into the into the robbery scene but we also have a description which i would say at least arguably exclude him but what about this confrontation clause was the fact that he believed there was a she was subject to some criminal charges and was immediately dismissed as a r d it's not admissible in the commonwealth responses it was stated and in the court and ninety seven show a docket sheet indicating that this was still at least there was something on the docket well after he had been convicted in april two thousand and seven is when this doctor she was printed out and it's part of the they pleadings filed by mr two billion in state court so it's not clear but i would say this case really i believe is very similar to alaska versus davis in which we're talking about the constitutional right to confront witness against someone and this is a case in which the courts are beyond pennsylvania's interest in protecting the rights of persons who are involved in charities data that was juvenile due to cation  fingerprints on the photo because the proper carried it into the heart of the berg the burglarized it placed in his left here except your argument on that isn't that taking cross examination into a place you may not want to go because the advice any motivation really to because it seemed quite coached the testimony what hand was the person carried in his left hand was her answer i'm not saying it was coach but dick that could have been at least bolstered that argument by the fact that she court to come please judge had to have had a in camera hearing to determine whether or not the police officers who were involved in the investigation this robbery had any knowledge of that insurance testimony in court now the story she gave then was before she was even involved in this insurance a r d problem well that's been stated your honor but i don't think that is part of the record before this court it's been stated by the comment that may well be true i can't speak to that but i have not you know what she said at the time of the robbery right i know what she said at trial your honor and you haven't investigated to find out what she said time of the robbery we looked at everything that's been available to me your honor based upon whatever see from our counsel's files and so i can't answer that i don't know that i'm not disputing it again but and that may be and that could be something i'm not that would be something the commonwealth could rehabilitate with her story didn't change but it doesn't take away his right to confront the witness against him is constitutional right i mean the cases relied upon by the state courts just simply didn't involve that they simply involve whether or not a witness generally can be cross examined because of an area the status this is very different we're talking about a constitutional ringback right to confront a witness against you the only eyewitness to the crime when are circumstances that indicate it was an inside job and the only evidence i mean no other evidence connecting the civilian no connection to get away car no matching the shoe print to what was there its thing or print was not found anywhere else in the store so i think this certainly rises to the level of a constitutional obviously there is no indication that they were not provided in discovery so the assumption is that they were and there was no cross examination by defense counsel that would indicate that her story changed whatsoever so according to the record her  statement statements to the police and her testimony at trial there's no reason to believe that they differ and i believe i'm able to shed some light on the timeline in that you are correct that this robbery occurred february two thousand and three and this witness was not charged with her these fraud charges intell december of two thousand and three so at the time when the robbery occurred and she immediately contacted nine hundred and eleven and provided her statement to police was well before she was charged with the with the fraud charges and at the time of trial her a r g was completed and at that point there was no way are there were no charges anymore they were result and dismissed via the a r v n i think that's a very important distinction because this is not a case where this is testifying and they have a pending a r d and there might be a stronger argument in those find the dates on the record ok so unfortunately where i found them your honor was from the trial court opinion slash piece sciri court opinion from judge cashman and also it appears as though the attorney that was appointed to represent him in a p c or a charles task he filed a rather lengthy the no merit letter and he included the date so it appears as though he looked into things now other than that i understand that nothing that i can i can't add to the record at this point but i did check an internal database that keeps track of the name social security number charges and dates and the dates were accurate and i can make that statement as a representative of the court but i understand that's not part of the record here but there is no more trial file if you will because it has been expunged but the dates that were used by attorney have and the statements that were made by judge cashman as far as the fact that her energy was complete those to check out with the internal district attorney's database which is literally just a one screen if you will that you pull up so this and and there and the appellant doesn't assert that the energy was pending at the time it wasn't so really the argument for some kind of bias is very weak it exists whatsoever and i do want to say that although there is an absolute right to confront a witness under the confrontation clause it has to be otherwise appropriate cross examination and of trial and result they were the case law does not make a right line distinction your honor but i'm saying that the argument for potential bias of the witness is certainly stronger when there is a pending energy i'm not saying at that point that a defendant has a right to cross examine and they already can i did not find cases that made that distinction but i can see from a practical standpoint how that may be a stronger argument look at the standards that we have for haiti is really an under at the top and you look at the hundreds under jackson and you consider the life in the evidence in the light most favorable to the commonweal i do not believe that he has met his burden to show that no rational fact finder could have reached this result we know under jackson that when the facts are different interpretations different inferences we have to presu that the fact finders the jury here made those inferences in favor of the government and we have to defer to that i also want to clarify one thing that mr ranson argued regarding whether or not the perpetrator was wearing gloves that's nowhere in the record and i don't think it's fair to argue that the perpetrator was likely wearing gloves because as noted the witness provided a kriti blank the physical description including the perpetrators clothing she got into specific color pants the type of coat how he was wearing the cone at chardon that but there's no mention of the perpetrator wearing gloves but also by no reference there's no reference as to the race of the individuals with his believe he was at work in america that is correct but i think when you look at here what's important is this it is movable property obviously what went distinguishes this case from a lot of the other cases regarding movable property is the fact that you have uncontroverted testimony of a witness seeing the perpetrator carry that idea into the scene of the crime commit the crime and then leave the i am behind so this is it and i think that that's a very important distinction because are the other cases regarding movable property there was no witness who saw the perpetrator physically bring in the i am that their fingerprints right then found on and obviously this is not and this and the secret she took a should really focus on those two things one that the perpetrator brought it in and two that it's not an item of common use this isn't a vending machine or you know i don't know but and i and that would be found and used more commonly  so when you look at that the idea that the college is really stuck on the idea that there's these alternative theories or alternative conclusions that could be reached but that's not the standard and it's certainly not the standard for haiti it's really so i just sufficient evidence to convict under our under the jackson versus virginia standard don't we have to do our own sufficiency of the evidence standard and if it fails isn't that the federal i think again there's important distinction distinguishing features for example and the th circuit case that they cite to where they rely on jackson and they found and they make a finding about fingerprint evidence that particular item was found to be i believe the words that were use were fully accessible to the general public shortly before the murder of occurred and again in that case nobody saw anyone growing it i believe it was it posts it turns turned salt posts nobody saw a perpetrator bring that into the scene of the crime it was just something that was found by the victim's body and in the th circuit case which i believe this gets said and again there was there was nobody seeing there are no witnesses that a perpetrator was bringing in the movable property in and out of the scene so i do think that there are distinctions so if this court is looking to review the sufficiency of this evidence in light of the standard set forth in jackson i still do not believe that the pilot has met his burden  i believe it's if you would like it could also address their argument that it was an eye reasonable determination of the facts under d two and i would just again point out that under the statute as well as u s supreme court law we have to give substantial deference to this charming nation of the facts by the state court and although there could be more than one interpretation of more than one reasonable interpretation the supreme court has been clear that is not to supersede the state court determination of the facts even if reasonable minds reviewing the record might disagree with how the state court interpreted the facts that does not entitle him to hate me especially and so for think you're honest quickly with regard to the confrontation because i would suggest that the on the basis of the record it's pure speculation right now as to whether or not she had actually completed the requirements of the area the program and that is in particular because of again explain ninety seven dollars there's a docket sheet which is clearly shows a printed out date of april of two thousand and seven which was well after the trial so i would i don't think it is it's clear one way or the other as to what her hearing now with regard to the insufficient evidence  concluded it makes the assumption that because the person carrying the robber carried the folder in that those things are prints must have necessarily been imprinted during the commission of the robbery and that is not that is the unreasonable determination of fact it's not supported by the record