to the village of oswego and to the oswego police department at trial the state introduced evidence that the defendant sent letters to us we go to these department what we found was in jail on these charges and the issue here appeal is about those letters and whether or not they should have been excluded from evidence where they contain vast amounts of prejudicial information most notably numerous references to various other problems so you could see  could see the good go of the lawyers the evidence was sufficient we're not raising reasonable doubt argument in this case and our argument is that the the introduction of these letters was not harmless but the other crimes in in these letters include everything from traffic tickets to domestic abuse drug dealing and even allegations of pedophilia just to give the court a few illustrations of things for example for if you want to call she why i've never been to a woman i've never pulled a knife on or another example where they say i was a drug dealer that a booster and a last example you're going to lie and say i'm a pedophile why you believe john mccullough story let me guess you didn't try to set up a child you just happened to be walking around with this camera that date right in the court below has ever articulated why these allegations of other crimes were relevance to the defense at issue here and they simply were not and that's the core problem in this case all of these other crimes are not relevant letters and that defense counsel media today object to the letters going back to the jury but as i mentioned she did renew her objection and so it's important to look at what was the prior generations work  what is necessary to eliminate the issues from which the other crime was introduced so that so that is an argument for redaction and she didn't actually use the word redact but we have this argument here and you also have the fact that implicit in her arguments to exclude the whole of the letters is to exclude the most prejudicial parts of letters and in fact she she pointed judges rambling complaints about what's going on in various aspects of their life so that didn't wait for prior multiple prior objections in any way and as you bring up closing argument as you go through them meaning the letters as you go through them look at letter thirteen so clearly the state's in the court of law one way i like to say on appeal was clearly under the impression that the judge ladies rolling on the motion eliminating him tell him read all the letters you can just rely on these two highlighted statements and he specifically is written order so that all the letters were admissible into evidence so by making this ruling the course made the threshold determination that all of these letters were relevant and that's that's really the problem with cases said these letters were not relevant and all of these letters should not have been fact there was for all the jury knew they could consider them for propensity but i think even even putting that aside if you look at the letters these all of these other incidents are still just voluntarily emitted into the hospital in the face of having to pay the bill for that is what caused the saying there but best that's not referenced in this letters again these letters are complaints about various other people about outweighed by all of this prejudicial information be being accused of being a pedophile being set up with a camera tried to staff his ex girlfriend i mean even the fact the traffic tickets he said at one point in the letters i've had twenty five tickets and been pulled over fifty plus times i mean this all weeds to the impression that he's just a it's the state's burden to prove that these these letters were harmless error but again as you were saying the question in this case and why these are not harmless is because there is a reasonable question whether or not i feel is a it's a valid complaint that i have now it's obviously stated in a manner to give the give the mayor's attention but they must be threats of bodily harm in there and that's why again as the judge said this is this is cryptic this is imply there's nothing on the face of it i'm going to kill you or anything to that extent and that's why this is a reasonable call for reversal so you've got these implied threats you've got these these questions of the jury happened whoa are they going to just simply ignore their doubts now that they know hey this guy's been accused of everything charge of cyber stalking there needs to be two communications so four e mails were sent to the police department all of those only two of them actually mention officer unders names and one of those doesn't even remotely continue their threat and  letters show the similarity between the letters and e mails and the voicemail and so it's clear that the prosecutor was attempting to type any doubt in the it takes some looking at the letters to actually determine what is being said because the ball from one subject to the next they are they are proceeded along the issue of opening statement prior to the trial defense counsel this is goes to the invited their argument defense counsel actually suggested that again that the defendant are written these e mails and that the argument that they are not close state's duty to seek are the rights of everyone in as part of that duty they are also obligated to daffs any prejudicial information from from the evidence in that case it was a defendant's  numerous times prior to this so it was not her obligation to make the same objection that had been denied time and time again in which all the parties more or under the impression that all of waive arguments but if this court were to consider that when they talk about intent but again if it if this were if this had been emitted on intent to a jury would have got a limiting instruction here they didn't do that they were just giving all these letters without any direction and if i were a jury that the first thing i would do is you is read through what all these exhibits are and when you're not and if we've given any guidance on how we want to do it on the natural instinct especially a vote of the way jerk is to look at propensity and say this this is a bad person he's done bad at least been accused of doing bad things in the past so i'm i'm going to