jeems were convicted of home invasion armed robbery residential burglary after a bench trial in the westerns were sentenced to twenty three years in prison and appealed the lessons of arguing three things first that they were proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt second that incriminating d n a evidence was improperly admitted against them a trial and third the trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to prison available scope tory d n a evidence a trial today i'm going to be focusing on the second  issues and i'll actually be taking them in reverse order from how they were briefed but if the court has any questions about the reasonable doubt claim personal do my best to answer those so this case basically presents two different d n a issues the first woods near the gardens there were used to commit crimes in the property that was stolen from victim trying to seize theory was that the perpetrators were the bats and used them as you gain entry to the victim's home forensic evidence supported copies of their reports there are two different experts who analyze the d n a both reports were given to defense counsel several months before trial notification of the of course was actually handling her to counsel's there's no question that the defense had these reports in their possession he expert who did the ultimate analysis in who ultimately determined that the d n a came from someone else use was she testified a trial she used her report to answer questions in defense counsel failed to ask her about her conclusions as to the d n a and vasant camcorder or to otherwise get her findings into evidence this was an objectively reasonable the the defense's entire theory of the case was that someone else committed these crimes and the experts analysis supported that theory because it indicated that someone else were the boss and touch this camcorder that was stolen from the victim and other with someone else in the crimes the experts  is by itself could have created reasonable doubt in this case and the expert testified at trial so all defense counsel had to do was ask her about her findings this isn't even a case where you know the defendants had to try to get their own expert they had one there they just had to ask her what she found this case an appeal to these points the state responds two different things first the prosecution presented no evidence that the vets were  information that indicated these vets were warned by the victim they would have had to tell the court that would have had to tell defense counsel and if you read the trial transcript defense counsel clearly trying to get testimony from the witnesses to show that the best  and if you do you it's only because you are not performing objective reasonably and so again yes look the the state argues that the best one used to commit these crimes prosecutors thought they were the police and videos clearly shows one of the investigating officers sergeant box you know when you with his bare hands we don't know who gave the mask sergeant box we don't know what was done with it before or after the end of it we don't know what he was doing at in and he didn't seal it around five months later investigator jermaine jones who handles the evidence locker encounters mask it's in an envelope and it's sealed he testified that he believed it was sealed the state shows that it's a reasonable protective measures here without more information regarding what exactly the police did with the mask before jones brought it to the crime lab the trial court couldn't rationally find the state met court could do was presume the state did own and again the why doesn't allow that presumption and that presumption would be especially inappropriate here because we have a video only police officer one of the investigating officers filed the post from motion but there was some confusion in the court over whether defense counsel's motion for directed i think there comes a point where there are or there is some going on in the case and it was unclear whether they were doing closing arguments or whether they were doing removing the motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence and i think defense counsel misunderstood what was going on in the next day the court immediately came in and announced the verdict but either way the issue is raised in the post trial motion that is all that has to happen here to to preserve this issue for review and in any event we did in fact ask for a plain your view should the court find that the issue was preserved mcmahon never said that he saw three black men outside apartment complex he was asked directly how are the people you saw similar to the people inside the apartment and holly said was they all wore dark clothes he didn't say they were men so he did not es and that apartment own the state prison in no evidence of dirt on the defendant's clothes even though they took the defendant's clothes into it is this one shoe from the apartment with respect to the defendant's sweating in being out of breath the trial court did not accept the officers testimony as to the sweating she corrected a prosecutor at one of those trial hearings where he argued that the defendants were perspiring she told him flat out no perspiring in possibly one of them had tweets or abusing his hair testified one of the defendants had something different about his eyes that was it and there was a very sad story that one of the perpetrators had he's a wise one of them had crossed eyes shimon deferred were testimony is not clear and it was different from what she seemed to be saying in the video of her identifying the mast so there really isn't any evidence or clear evidence at trial people who did this crime i mean the defendants which means a different group of three second even that's correct again but it's strongly supports to councils arguments with respect to the mass because evidence that the evidence evidence linking the defendants to this crime and without it basically the state couldn't convict them so we are all screwed if we with respect to the mask that the court could reverse operate or grant them a new trial