voluntarily came into the police department and gave a statement saying i wasn't there i don't know what happened and then after being reassured that he was not a suspect in another statement to the police saying i was there to shooting i saw slater shoot britain and britain was on  based on this information the state charge mr slater with first degree murder fast forward about a year later september of two thousand and fourteen in preparing their case the state again interviewed mr mcclellan who said hey i've got something to tell you  by saying that mr burton was armed and that's the second count that mr mr mcclellan lied when he said that mr britain with arm basis of this assumption of justice the problem we have is that the state is basically trying to have its cake and eat it too they went with the narrative and their narrative that mr slater's guilty proceeding was mr great and was armed with a gun they made a factual conclusion and they based their guilty plea on that fact and then the very next day they charged prosecuted and convicted mr conviction then they changed their mind and when they prosecuted mr mcclellan for lying about the fact that mr burton to come and i find it a bit ironic that the state prosecuted mr mcclellan for changing his halfs when the state did exactly that and change their facts to secure convictions against mr slater and then mr mcclellan have a state wasn't necessarily in a disadvantage because they went with the fact that mr mcclelland saw mr britain with their bond because they could have just prosecuted him for lying about saying that mr breton was on or they could have just prosecuted him on saying that mr britt you know mr clones first stated that he said he wasn't there but they chose the fact when they only eyewitness and mr mcconnell was actually in court that day and the state actually swore him he didn't end up answer any questions because the judge wisely concluded we need to be quiet because you might get yourself in some trouble here so i don't think it's much of a stretch to say that  law enforcement is something we should encourage people to do obviously not he was prosecuted for changing his factional stories i think the state would have been proper in charging him with you know coming in and saying oh mr burton didn't have a gun and then but once the and then charge an entirely different that even with that argument even you know regardless of judicial sample principles the state didn't have sufficient evidence to convict mr mcclelland of obstructing justice sucking justice requires essentially three different components so it's a false statement made by someone with the intent to impede the prosecution or defense and thirdly and importantly in this case the fact that the statement is in fact false unlike in perjury which only requires mutually inconsistent statements obstructing justice requires the state prove that a statement is actually false not just that you lived a please not just that you gave inconsistent stories but you gave inconsistent stories and you lied with the intent to impede the prosecution and that the state to prove that that fact this false here they didn't say they do have the inconsistent shifting of stories from mr mcclellan they have these conversations with mr slater in prison which seems to imply that his shifting stories were made with the intent to impede the prosecution of mr slater but they never proved factually that mr britain breton wasn't looking around for evidence of collecting gunshot residue from the victim tanzer looking for shell casings he was only there in an emergency capacity the state could have called the investigating officers could have called detectives for the call people who actually looked at the scene to state we looked at the entire scene and we found no bomb a paramedic simply wasn't good enough to prove as they were required to do that mr breton did not in fact have a bond and that element and we know that the state didn't necessarily believe that they needed to prove this because again mister mcclellan was charged with two different counts of obstructing justice run that his statement that britain had a gun was a lie which is reasonable doubt they require to prove these three aliments and they didn't do it and when we kind of underlie and looked at the state just a year before had made the fact that mr burton had been part of its  how that controls future litigation regarding any participant in the process when the state offers as its factual basis that something is i don't know what the fourth like  evidence obviously it's the decision you know it's that the state has it in their power to create the narrative and what facts they want to present and this prevents them from shifting positions from letting people rely on what the state says as this is our consistent position that this is the fact that we're going with the day and not changing what we don't know i hope we don't want to happen is the state of hurrying in guilty pleas or a trial they don't put in the gun element they say ok we're going to drop that part so you can plead guilty to something lesser imagine of the state could go into this guilty plea and and don't have the armed firearm language and then turn around the next day and try to prosecute  i believe the defense tried and usually they do usually the defendants i mean especially when you're leading something last year you might want the defense which i'll guess i've definitely seen that for what it is a powerful base this is a position or is offered the position by the state is that the reason why this is second degree murder whether it's reducing it because from first degree murder or getting a second degree murder conviction and not an outright reversal on south offense is because mr britain had a gun and they would what is it in slater's case that demonstrates the position taken by say the position by the state was the fact that this be second degree murder because of my clients because my client statement that mr br as as they needed to support their conviction they presented this fact because it satisfies their elements they needed to prove which is that mr breton had about they use my client's statement to that effect they didn't have to they could a very they have gone to trial and had my client's multiple statements you know before a jury if they had other evidence i don't know if they had other evidence we don't really know what the substance of  evidence they had against later it seems all they had was my client's data and that they would have gone with the position that mr burton had a god that they were maybe trapped into that position again i'm not i'm not here to necessarily support people of changing two men for the essentially same and student however that is not the case because there are two different answers in this case the person occurred with the murder of britain and then the second occurred when the  connect was talking about earlier where it involved the same parties and with rock the state tried and their first harry they try to suspend the defense license in that case because he failed to take a breathalyzer exam now they say got greedy and state would ask this court not to reverse defense contradiction for judicial stop one seen it all involved the same parties so there was one like that because i was brock there is another case there is a there's a couple other cases where just involve the same party there were there wasn't are a person when lives in the police and then you know allowed another party you know specifically say person a you know they can go out and rob a bank or whatever and person b their best friend could lie about it and then you know that the party a basically receive a lesser prison sentence this is the type of type of print behavior that was that needs to be prevented now alternatively defend our use the state and not prove defending guilty beyond a reasonable doubt  the two major critical piece of evidence was paramedic wilson's testimony and then the tapes but there's all of those also two other pieces of evidence was that the letter that slater cameras later sent to the defended what she said he rejected was in prison they both talk to each other and then defend it basically says that he specifically stated i gotz you and you have nothing to worry about now combined with this with all the other with all the evidence in total a  bear that the defendant known only furnished false information to obstruct slayer's conviction the evidence in this case was not so improbable on satisfactory to that justifies a reasonable doubt to convict or to transcript and discovery the defense relied on the fact that it was neither and that had nothing to do why would i go looking for a transcript of the status already not given it to me so i can just presume that there's nothing to do with my client this court allowed this to be supplemented into the record so it is obviously before this court the second part is i would argue there is no there's no authority that has to be the same parties both the same we have the same party we have the statement in two contradictory kind of make sure that the state is offering the same factual consistencies when it's different defendants we should be a little bit more looking our light on that because it's easier to mess it's easier to mess that the state is changing their positions in one case  into another case regarding the reasonable doubt the statements that my client made to mr slater go to whether or not his intent was to obstruct the prosecution of mr slater but that doesn't relieve the state of its burden to prove whether or not mr britain had a gun just because my client wanted to help this guy out maybe just because my client doesn't mean it's not true we're just all presuming that the last statement was the false statement but the state still had to prove that it was false and it's much harder to do when you've got these double statements the classic case of obstruction is i come to arrest you and your house and and you know your friends as always not here and you're clearly behind me the state still have to prove that you were present to show that i'm of struck injustice they have to prove the fact that you lied and that it was false it is not a crime to just simply lie to the police i know that that's hard you know to bear but it's not there has to be some intent by the person saying the lie to obstruct the prosecution and have actually has to be a li it has to be something that you're doing intentionally and the state had to prove that mr britain did not have a gun and they didn't do it and i'm assuming there was other evidence they could have brought the paramedic was not sufficient to establish whether or not there was a  property and what it seems like is from the conversations between slater and my client that some type of gun was recovered or covered later or there speaking about a gun being recovered so there was better evidence that the state could have brought in i'm assuming law