questions about this just sort of not going to do it that however what if that's what you're asking us versus conviction based upon her question never occurred isn't that right the jury was in question about their attitude about gang violence about groups but the record is totally silent about any prudish and on the fence counsel that's the point i want to emphasize and why given that silence should we be able mind to reverse the court for here the judge is a ruling is a big us or uncertain the judge thinks it's clear it seems to me the movement should say well wait a minute judge what about me can i go here next those questions even though you've decided you're not going to seek clarification of what he what the court meant with regard to defense counsel motion they to come things going to be false on the show and i don't see anything to say also told the jury that witnesses lied and because they read the scare that they were take care matters on their own story that was the state t saw was one of the victims in this case was her son and she saw him being shot and therefore she want to take recreation and take her shooters but time trial she to know who the players are why they're there and that because otherwise the case as i did was inexplicable but that background evidence there was of course a lot of discussion about whether the jurors believed that these were black groups or gangs hearing that he was a rock producer he was and our lab group and defense counsel himself stated that witnesses had indicated that there were these are rap groups that are not against defense counsel one to these to be considered to rap groups not gangs and in fact the state had charged defendant initially with being a he was charged with possession of a firearm by a street gang member and they dropped that charge consistent with this new theory that the court defense counsel and the state agreed that these were going to be just referred to as rival rap groups and the word gang was not mentioned ever in the ears of the jury but defense counsel is now asking on appeal as far as to go back and allow the jurors to be questioned about any kind of game bias they have despite the fact that at the trial court level defense counsel wanted no mention of gangs whatsoever he just wanted these groups to be referred to as rival grassroots runners just as a hypothetical let's say that the trial court did question the jurors about games do you have any gang bias do you know ok and this area etc and any reference to games was never made once more throughout the whole proceeding that reference alone to larger could then lead the jury to believe that these rival rap groups as they were called for the rest of the trial were game so it's a double edged sword and the court exercised its discretion in saying no we decided these are rival groups and we're actual fighting incident as counsel notes in his brief as well as in his arguments today there were numerous incidents of violence between these two groups are essential about whole summer leading up to this time and the state wanted to introduce and actually filed a motion to introduce evidence related to other incidences other than what happened on that day the court again exercised its discretion and said we're all me going to allow evidence of the events that happened to this day the events leading up to the shooting incident cycling to show that these people know each other the state was faced with a situation where everyone denies knowing each other they deny being in these rock groups they say my having any involvement in this incident and they all know each other and off all the  that evidence establish that they do know each other they were visiting one another you don't visit someone that you don't know in jail and put them where the defendant stipulated to the admission of the halls of the visits now during the trial and your honor this is actually sound trial strategy because then the state was that calling witnesses over and over to testify about who came to visit and one rather it was a stipulation that was led to the jury it was an out that established that these people knew each other and that was the end of it possession of a weapon charge along with any other charges that the defendant faces there are strategic reasons for this for example severing the charges might give the state two bites at the apple or counsel ones to try and get an acquittal on all the charges out once rather than face  separately which might allow the state to shore up any evidence problems they have before they are the cases that defendant cites and his brief are cases where defendant asks for a severance and the trial court denied that severance that's not what happened here defense counsel never asked for a severance of these charges and he was not an effective for doing so you are finally defining raises an issue regarding sufficiency of the evidence as justice sidemen noted earlier michele brown testified during her police report an interview she stated that she saw the defendant shoot the victim mr jackson her testimony was corroborated by the forensics that were at the scene there were shall casings found that were consistent with her testimony about what had happened at the scene of the crime there was a bullet hole through a fence i believe a bullet had a very quality shell casings were found consistent with why she had and buys detective finale additionally on it and this might seem like a small point but again going back to america and everyone's not cooperate in her testimony the evidence that was admitted had significant probative value just not to show propensity but to show motive to show the continuing narrative of events and quite simply to show that all of these people knew each other despite their testimony at defendants trial unless co