motion the defense argued against admission of these statements in a at the pretrial hearing and this issue was included in the poster of motion well how what case law do you hand that indicates that the same opportunity there is a very extensive emotional need filed by the state was included over four hundred pages of exhibits and there's an extensive pretrial hearing and so that the judge have the again i can't speak to the specifics of that case but it either way this issue has been litigated it extensively prior to the trial and also after the trial that the state's motion as well as the defense's response to that conspiracy it's important to remember that at this point the crime had already committed obviously the conspiracy was in the concealment stage and there were not disputing that and responsibilities consumer base was a good way driver she was to drive giles in robinson to miss manners apartment and at this point she knew obviously what their plan was she had escorted them blame on to the defendant in that case and as well as you know in our case mr giles admitted on the stand that he was not familiar with the concept of accountability in his statement as well as mr robinson statement  or spontaneous declaration or they would also not qualify with that exception because the at the time they were made the stress of them all when had not so overcome mr giles and mr robinson a recap of what happened and that way they would have to put events together organize them in their mind and that shows that the stress of the situation did not make it a spontaneous declaration or a new or an excited u statements to begin or at the apartment prior to the crime these also were not offered in furtherance of the conspiracy and that's true for two reasons first mr bell was revealing the conspiracy to would not conspirator in this case mr banner who the other conspirators were actively trying to hide their activities from for much of the night and secondly parts of her statement which relate to the state of mind are simply not relevant to the ultimate question of mr denson is guilt or innocence and for this reason they don't fall under that exception either but it is because these issues have been preserved it's the state's burden to prove that they were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt on and the if you look back to the first trial essentially the same evidence and for the most part defense did not have the opportunity to cross examine the illinois supreme court in her name the areas to her name this case recognize that this is is not a minor error in fact they said quote it would be difficult to imagine any evidence that would be fits under the coconspirator statement then it doesn't violate crawford and if it doesn't fit under the coconspirators exception rather then you don't have to look at crawford because it is inadmissible but of the spirit of crawford is is really sort of points is at issue here we have a witness that a co defendants that's in effect testifying which the defense does not have the opportunity to confront and that is that is  closing argument and the danger here is that the jury simply believes giants this is testimony based on this sheer repetition and not based on looking at the the  for rather than with a broad brush i'd like to google uncover each statement individually so that we can hone in on exactly what is at issue here and what is not first let's take it in terms of th that she because she didn't want to set him up to get robbed she was also how over friends with jones who was clearly moved when she ordered the child and said died so she does have the allegiances sort of all over the place but nevertheless she was part of the play and part of the conspiracy and a even on the point is that the defense had offered to new team cross examine the witness who overheard the statement so peter bell was there at trial they had the opportunity cross examine her and did so vigorously further a conspiracy i think there's a difference of whether or not we're at communities here see towards completion i know we just got done talking about a temp rose and i think the continuum between between preparation and completion that is certainly an interesting way to evaluate it but the bottom line is if as long as the statements are made during during the course of during the pendency of the conspiracy and further what is essentially an objective of the conspiracy in this case to get away actually had not taken the view of you know in retrospect i probably jumped on the first proposition just about it being the changing roles within the conspiracy because i thought that to be a little bit closer to i would say though that in this case it's a little bit unique because the motion limit is written in very broad terms and then the roughly four hundred pieces that the defendant alludes to of different transcription testimony didn't exactly include the statements that are  on appeal he didn't include bear statements what she overheard her sister say on the phone in those four hundred pages so i'm sitting here whether it's four hundred or not i think i think it is forfeited it one statement was over whatever i don't think that the defendant has a need to show him that this trial would have ended up in a different way the evidence against this defendant was overwhelming the crime itself was extremely violent and i don't i don't make that statement only because and furthermore there were mean the contradictions in the state's case particularly between mr giles and stacy dangerous the only two eyewitnesses who were in the bedroom that night that testif and they are the contradictions between their testimony was kind of glossed over by these sheer repetition and the fact that giles est it was her and not just from him but then from miss bell and then from him to miss bell putting him in the mouth of mr robinson somebody just hearing it over and over again the jury was overwhelmed by this evidence and they perhaps decided based on just hearing the evidence multiple times rather than looking at some of the serious contradictions again between bell and daniels and also between erbitux giles and needles and also between giles and bell so that the evidence in this case there were problems