jury was to decide whether m p s testimony was both sufficiently credible and sufficiently reliable to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the state had proved the element that mr collins credibility and reliability issues was improperly influenced by the admission of officer gruber's opinion testimony about the very poor quality surveillance video in this case both testimony that the video shows the movement between the cars and that testimony would have been consistent with m p s version of bands not consistent with mr collins interrogation statements and also groupers testimony that the video itself again it's very poor quality the state announced pretrial that it was going to seek and see if it could get the video and he asked for a better quality and was unable to do so and so it relied on this parking lot and then he pulled into the space next to the car that he was inside kind of in an angle i thought so to be not perfectly parallel was it i believe th between vehicles that would be consistent with a harder opening and now mr collins in his interrogation by this trooper and was in fact that he had no recollection of actually getting out of the car his testimony that after doing all of the video it it's very consistent with him his testimony so that brings in proper testimony and improper reference to prior consistent statements so we have an excessive repetition of prior again it could be out of context by the jury and we also have the state hammering from opening closing open opening statements through closing arguments and hammering the motion that this is a predator he's playing on these girls he counting and those are very clearly improper arguments based on her case so you have this state seeking to put its finger on the scale essential really and what should be a credibility based case where th this away so certainly if when you're talking about interrogation videos or for things like i'm commenting on what a video shows and you can provide context and things like that when you're talking about identifying a person or an object on a video and the president is doing that he's to have some basis for being able to do so better than the jury themselves and movement or you can't discern what the object would be that crosses the line because the ruger doesn't have any special expertise he wasn't offered as a as an expert and he wasn't present he has no  ence and here the state submitted evidence that showed that the defendant was aware that he was on camera that the defendant waited there was an open spot next to the vehicle on the left side of the fended could have moved into it  that sense he is able to offer testimony that might mean the issue easier for the jury to determine you know if there there was one opportunity to view this defendant does argue that but they say no case law saying where they're required to have more than one opportunity which are movement on the video and that's for the jury to decide and it's also in the context of the empire arguments by the state questions about prior consistent statements and it's not just about the movement but it's also about officer brooders testimony that he inherited the video was consistent with the girl's prior out of work statements and that is where we get into extreme prejudice because you have the