there and basically just don't ease up in this happens all the time in you know again cases among others where they gave the score some legitimate pause and concern the first time but the difference is in a case and that is a this is i don't remember least step by step they're confronted with a harsh statement the statement is out there been it's not going you know defense counsel a position of having to stand up they're going to listen to this because it's already been elicited by the state they were made the  thirty minutes in great detail about what this child supposedly said and that child's credibility is the one that's going to put your client in prison met clients that witnesses the building is the one that is an issue so she makes roberts the you know firmly rooted exceptions there wasn't a specifically parliament in the with me understanding all souls supreme court says no confrontation means the right to confront the with those they held in crawford quote to declare it appears for cross examination the trial the confrontation clause places no constraints at all on the use of the trial testimony or statements usually was appealed for cross examination takes the witness stand under oath isn't that what happened in the witness explain the statements the witness was never the witness was never presented with these statements the witness was never confronted i mean i guess that's the end is that why a defense counsel here elected not to cross examine this witness that how can a witness then be unavailable for cross examination if there is no even attempt to cross examine and in our case again we did have certain things that this young witness didn't same shit and to making the drawings she doesn't provide compelling testimony against your claim you probably don't want to wade into that mine field however is that the problem for the court is that a problem for the law if you have the right to do something and you choose not to witness because there was no cues that tory tested her because there was no testimony that could put my client prison so this is very good it was a question this this witness because the state hasn't done what it needs to do and then they renewed their earlier memory loss they don't provide the testimony they need to do this credit you know me well as well so they are all going home and there's going to be no conviction in this case all it did was exacerbate the problem that defense counsel had because he knew and in that case that is not sufficient so i don't know i don't believe that there's a meaningful distinction between ok council gets up and asking questions and the cry purses council says you know there's been no there's been testimony if you don't and then all you have to do is what you do in every adult case in every case certainly with gang members or something like that is you take the statement you go through and you you give that witness the opportunity to defend or explain  cases that hold a feel good is satisfied if the witness takes the stand and answers questions so be your position the witness doesn't need to accuse the defendant on the witness does not have to provide a specific level of think there was much difference between them sentimental learning breaking down and crying and the fact that the victim in this case really memory loss because effectively there was nothing to cross examine and allegations themselves i think you're right i made a good point that there are there's not more than one test for the confrontation clause analysis there is a great language for justice scalia i think in one of the confirmation close cases that we don't have