the murder and he hear that nothing about your more than five months later brock was arrested and she changed one million county and i think that telling that waiter in cross examination the best counsel trying to get out a meeting that we had with the vermillion county state's attorney trial court they  you're getting different iterations of stories over time and quite frankly i think the trial court and maybe the attorneys to a certain extent got confused about impeachment testimony read this impeachment  examine him closely in retail i refer and that is their issue is also kind of a background contributing error to the cumulative error here  certainly i don't think that it is anything controversial to say the trial court has the discretion to limit cross examination when it borders on ad nauseum if for example they want to hammer away at the specifics of what you've been charged well i would direct the court i think the defendant characterizes what he was actually trying to elicit very clearly in his fifty nine brief a question he wanted to get was was there a reason for mosley to volunteer this letter when he did essentially what he facing charges and counsel just never asked that question he wasn't restricted messages never actually asked and when the court gone through this you never actually asked the question when you sent your letter were you facing charges and that's the question that he's saying he was not allowed to ask you just never oh no there's more to that was just the beginning i mean it prospects and action as not being permitted to explore the chronology of whether it mostly was facing charges at the time and senses letters that he had a motivation to to fabricate a story and of course that's the claim so i think what i was saying twenty seconds ago was the question the council is saying or that defendant is and he was not allowed to ask what he wanted to us was whether mostly was facing charges at the time that he sent this letter just to get a motivation and that question is not a question that he asked and he didn't make an offer of proof that that was what he was trying to ask he asked a series of questions about the sentence that mostly get originally received and that's not what i'm asking i'm actually trying to ask this you never made the offer proof that have allowed the courts to determine whether this was a question that's now false or are not one asked so really it's just we just don't have a record to find that there was the restriction that he felt the court making the court doesn't make that restriction and page are four of four expressway reserved for when it comes up and says i'm not going to you go into the prior specifics at nauseum so take that for what it means but you need to be careful in that area it doesn't was in the middle of a question so we don't actually know what the rest of the question what council could have said no no i'm not asking about this and asked me about this and then the court would have known oh he's now asked much for analogy rather than just continuing to ask about the census by not clarifying or charges in champion county work that would've plainly been directed at bias or move and then had the trial courts and i'm not going let you ask that we be in a very different position but that's not the position we're in because that record was just  we just don't know what questions to a defense counsel would have asked because he never made any offer to the court you just abandon the line of questioning and don't let me ask you about the other point ms can made in that is then the earlier statement is of no moment that's a prior consistent state and is not to be that's the part about except when there are very limited circumstances it seems like to me rather straightforward rules brit britain bell were the ones that were confronted with their prior police statements to my knowledge mostly in savage and and brown were were not but it's important to remember that it's whether counseled a reasonable strategic decision not to object on that particular grounds and that is whether something to this poll is not dispositive a back question as admissibility is merely one factor that goes in the strategic calculation the council makes that the court indulge a strong presumption that counsels decisions were made in a matter of reasonable strategy were they to raise in the post conviction petition at the nd stage of state moving to dismiss on exactly the same grounds that you rick and i agree that you presume it was object to its impropriety and here i would submit counsel didn't have a reasonable basis because what was happening here once it became clear counsel objected that st that there was a sidebar and as the prosecution said your honor what's happening is we asked him about statements a particular detail he says i don't remember it we direct him to the transcript where he talked about it and that he remembers so was it clear that point of the state's attorney was trying to do was to refresh his record much you're doing improperly that was the goal so at this point counsel's presented with the question what do i want to do about this because if i push it then the state's attorney is likely to do exactly what your your honor suggested which is her properly refreshes recollection by showing him the had the flavor to the jury at least pietschmann it made it look like brick was not being forthcoming that maybe he was not being truthful and that is a more beneficial wait for the jury to be exposed to this information that we're elicited after every refreshes recollection here the prosecution had chosen the least effective way of refreshing his recollection where debate him look most suspect because refreshing his recollection was permissible why not let him do it in this way that makes him look ms kemp would say and i capability is of the attorneys i would say that the strict whether house will strategic decision was reasonable is always going to be based on speculation right the best counsel is making a decision in real time if i take this action what are the what are the possible consequences and so he has to make a judgment in the moment what do i think will happen if i do this and council could have recently decided since they've already said we're trying to arrest precious recollection they're doing it poorly the was at the scene of the murders that he had been paid in money and cocaine for the murders and that he had been seen leaving the scene of the crime by an eyewitness now he didn't testify did not or he's not in it rather that he actually pulled the trigger for that part  said that's what people are saying you did not similarly distance himself from being at the scene from being paid for the murders so he said well that's what people are saying and then he tried to hire a belt d to shoot the eyewitness you see in the scene of the crime so at that point that testimony is extremely harmful to friends the defense would like for this witness to look like he is not telling the truth and just at that moment the state says we want to impeach you with your prior inconsistent statements that is actually supportive of the that this court would disagree you certainly could take judicial notice i do they let my case file i review in court may take judicial notice of a written decision that is part of the record in another court the reason i provided it here is not because any of my arguments necessarily rely on it but i thought it would either court in understanding the full factual context of who this person is because he is trying to is all over this record without a lot of exposure in this case but you've addressed what it was thinking or to reveal now but you don't need to know what mostly would have sat if you conclude that the cross examination was improperly restrict and that's a violation of my client's constitutional rights and who brought the witnesses against him the state has to prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt so it's on a state to prove that whatever mostly would have sat wouldn't have been problematic to his credibility harmlessness factors are the importance of the witness's testimony to the state's case whether the testimony was cumulative the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the witness's testimony on material points the extent of cross examine nation otherwise permitted and the overall strength of the state's case so what that cross examination would have revealed it's not the issue the issue is that we never got to hear that and most importantly the jury never got to hear that the jury was specifically told during closing argument and exchange for their testimony and that is the court me that very unequivocal statement just the court trial that the own and then robinson motor was promised says so that context has to come with us into the moment when defense counsel was trying to question mostly about his motives it's also important it right there it's also important to note that on direct testimony mostly himself not  the watters on time for th by claiming that he has sentence was shortened because he put in an appeal and won so mostly told the jury that his twenty year sentence was reduced dramatically because he won an appeal in his tastes but the actual truth of the matter as again exhibit it in the timeline is much more complex and that's why the fence council needed to get into the procedural history of seven for nine in order to show the jury the tiny thing and