in people versus jones the victim was changed also and there in the court held that the amendment was formal and not substantive yes in jones decided at the second stage of the analysis determining if the grand jury intended to change jones did the hell that was a armed robbery case in jones did hold that the identity of the name down was an essential element in that charge but it was formal because based on the evidence it was clear that the green jury meant to indict the father but the son's name somehow inadvertently been put into the indictment so testimony so my question then becomes where's the surprising where's the prejudice it isn't like all of a sudden somebody is missing for the first time to be you're correct your honor and duty here is is mentioned with the green jury his victim that was recently in the bank meaning jones which is different here so i'm sorry say that again other words here as justice hudson indicated there was evidence before the grand jury was indeed a for trial who are looked at the green jury transcripts reviewed according to the grand jury transcript a trial court determined that the grand jury never properly charge this crime and it is the state's responsibility to go through the means that are laid out both in the constitution in statutes for how to initiate selling proceedings but the evidence would have been any different before the grand jury expanse in terms of taxpayer dollars and incarcerating mr jones for four half years based on again this momentary cuts but agreed we don't know what the grand jury would have done because the grand jury who never indicted him or we don't know that they indicted that was originally in the indictment the only evidence was the victim and as it was reflected in the amended indictment and jones so that is the case when it is formal then that person is showing that president's analysis is engag to the second step of analysis which is whether or not the green jury intended this change the trial court in raw specifically said that walking into green jury transcripts the name of the remember it's a man or a woman he or she would listen and make the effort to listen through the trial and then make the determination of the credibility of the police officer is offering you there's a few statements that would tend to support his credibility but his last word is that he would find the police officers more believable but we have to take this statement it's a whole we can't just take one line out of context in the whole colloquy between the doesn't raise the level of a challenge for cause at least the attorney should engage and use one of his preemptory challenges of which he used not at that point to strike mr grease and to further on that one more year  call witnesses before the group jury room and had they done that correctly in this case we would give this problem and i would agree with that this isn't what i want who should chill who should shoulder the burden for that kind of correct in responding to leading questions where the state doesn't it quoting it's your argument that in this case the green jury really didn't guard against any abuse by the prosecutor they were just simply rubber stamp well i mean this  really did this case did the grigory perceive presentation guard against abuse by the prosecutor on yeah i think it does and he didn't have to answer questions i mean they have yes they're leading questions even less of this case if your fixation that you're suggesting in this case or in people versus hunter or send a message to prosecutors to guard against mistakes before green jury for example if there's  would say that there's a considerable difference i mean the one who will do both the prosecutor is actively pursuing false testimony knowingly doing so this this is an insult to the system i different factual scenario it's not a big down which in this case changed made it a different battery it's the same god it's just where the gun was located in terms of the grand jury transcript in the counsel in the indictment there were three counts all of them referred to officer caught including the resisting count which specifically allege that the defendants struck officer caught so clearly the green jury thought that there was an aggravated battery to a cause and it reading the transcript even after the touching of his belt there are there is some statements that  defendant continued to fight with all of the officers and continue to struggle with all the officer so the grand jury may believe that that as well contributed to the aggravated battery against the coffee and creates more uncertainty