that the victim mr patel testified that he did not identify this or did this in the courtroom mr patel also testified that he would be to recognize a person assaulted him because they had had an interaction with that person the night before a photo lab mr patel testified that he had been given a borderline and mr dennis was in the water line he did know the victim and his wife both made it very clear that if they saw the person that they saw on the night before the incident the robbery they would be able to recognize that person and mr dennis another evidence actually your honor but with what happened with respect to the other evidence the when the robbery was reported the police began to have a description of the back which was a young black male they went in it there's a little picture of a sock with money and it looked like very small denominations at nowhere in the record does anybody say they counted the money you in the bay were in a significant amount of money there's people in this house testified about it it wasn't it was not permitted in evidence is my recollection and i wasn't his attorney below but i don't remember seeing it only because the list and there was no indication of how much he said it was some bull gold money and various denominations the most important aspect of this case is that the police officers on the hard drive the whole thing then with the police officer watching the burn a d v d from the hard drive  in foundation where you're on appeal questions whether the videotape is true and accurate now for the very first time just a couple minutes ago i heard bence counsel identifying the defendant as as the person in the video they did not object to th was here is probably a more accurate representation of their testimony what they said was they looked at the videotape they recognized the person in the video and they then went to the defendant's house this is just n that comes up very frequently when you want they were saying i'm an expert i know they were simply saying because they saw someone we recognize this is what we did and you have a quick enough memory of your closing arguments to know if the prosecutor used it that way to refer to it at all and we can look at the record i mean i'm not asking you to memorize the record right but it would seem tempting to a prosecutor that maybe he said no argument is substantive evidence what i have yet again you will what i have here is a quote from the prosecutor that says most importantly you've got to see it yourself  particular question you asked about whether the police officer had identified the person in the videotape and he both versus taylor the court says authenticate and pick a shell of a video tape does not necessarily girlfriend testifying with trial yes he did or did she quote him as saying that he robbed a liquor store that she testified that she had overheard on the phone to him believe that he said that he is going to be good time and h essentially that was about the evidence but i think the important thing here is that this issue about the office is giving companion testimony in the absence and they're essentially arguing whether the state can be precluded from offering an opinion customarily regarding the identity of the person on the video so this is a complex issue it has many twist and aspects to it but the police officers opinion testimony in the context where the victim does not identify the defendant either in or or in the video was definitely r i'm going to expand this window only thing is it's going to stretch the resolution that's on a c two five five of the record whereas he's showing this varies look at this video he says the first thing he's going to do is stretch it out he said quote you can't really see what's going on behind the counter due to the rack there you can see the shadow or some images where the suspect th very tough you see a shiny object and what appears to be the shiny end of the gun there there was a glimpse of it there now you watch in the mirror so the the main person in the case that testified against mr bryant this was basing his testimony on stretching out the video clip enlarging it and looking at the meter shown in the video and he himself says you can see the suspect in the mirror and see a shadow of the suspect here and look over here because see a little bright shiny our object so at no time is m first we were told that this is brandon in the video and then we watched the video and then we agree that it did was mr davis in the video so the only people besides police officers night before and this was a hit and utility whose testimony was very angry and he had previously told the police that he had overheard mr get it on the phone about robbing the time so that's not the exact words but