occurred during that statement two days after the occurrence that he had two and a half years later that is not a surprise it's not surprising that somebody at a retail store  was here in a retail store after a very bloody murder and there is nothing on him and there is not showing that he had just participated in such a bloody murder tests and that is why the defense counsel was trying to do was fear at the time of his cross examination he was trying to be or cross bad this is just a to kill this person because he doesn't own a gun he never showed to go there was no testimony of that nature was there no you're absolutely correct and you were correct in asking baron initially defense counsel argued that there was a search of the residence there was a search of the defend were you given any indication of the jury by objecting to that that they were back once again so you know we were correct in a misstatement of the law we were correcting an argument that inferred we had additional elements beyond the ones that the jury had been and would be instructed they had to find and it had we allowed that to go on objected and half they considered that that would not have resulted in justice and it would not have been a fair consideration of the evidence that they actually they did not hear here because we did not have to prove that he owned a gun that he never possessed again that he had to be in possession of the night of the murder but we didn't have to prove he purchased it we didn't have to prove anyone had seen him fire it there was again council talk today about subtle hints that certainly wasn't even subtle the argument is he doesn't know why and he didn't fire him well respectfully somewhat question if you if the those would be arguments based on facts and evidence crossing the line though is arguing facts not in evidence there was nothing in evidence about whether he had or had not ever purchased a gun or whether any random person had ever seen him fire say the prosecutor knows what happens and he's not letting me tell you that is a completely different scenario than what happened here you look in this instance it's almost the reverse you have defense counsel standing up here saying i'm to tell you a couple more things that you need to consider they're totally distinguishable cases those are not the facts that we have the court never occluded them from arguing that there was no god correct and we never objected we did not object to that point it was relevant i will say that it is not what is genuine to stand over here and to argue that somehow the states objected and allowed the jury dyspepsia late that possibly defendant did in the gun or have been seen firing it but that we had somehow maliciously acted to keep the jury from hearing that that's not the fact what we did was correct in this statement and if there was speculation that occurred because of that misstatement of law it rests on the shoulders of defense counsel and not the state and it should not be something that should be held against us being two thirty and the cross examination of the witness speer was a crime scene technician he testified that he did a presumption test that was positive for the probable presence of blood he also very clearly testified that based on this causative result he bagged the evidence and he sent to follow and bring in clearly hearsay testimony based on an out of court statement by presumably brown we don't know but by some identify a person that subsequently the spirit later learned  that his test had been false and it's important that repeatedly in spears testimony he said no my test was positive and again this is important it was a presumption test it was positive to the probable presence of blood not the conclusive presence of blood but it was the explanation of why it was then forwarded to the state or to the state crime lab then  wait for it to come out on cross we brought it out under wraps it was confirmed again on cross examination and there was no follow up so that again was only in the chain and also to show the sequence of best why did what he did correct is there is there any exception to hearsay that would allow spears test to become you know there isn't and i know the defendant argues here say here should not have been a part of the testimony of spirit because brown was coming in later and could verify the testimony that spirit gave but that's not the proper course of action the proper prior statement the point that tended once to make chamberlain is that his statement to the officer would provide him somehow with an alibi and although he didn't argue it today in his brief he clearly argued that the statement was when provided evidence that defendant was in that auto zone in the afternoon of them or there is nothing as i pointed out in  nine and new but you know the testimony or the statement to the officer was two one two nine zero nine which is kind of interesting will i believe he said his shifts are typically like two ten to nine something but he said he always not always he typically also comes in around noon just like he said he typically would work on a thursday because he only gets you know every five weeks or something is the way his alternate days are off he was doing his best i don't think we can  mr chamberlain because the fact that the trial is happening two and a half years after he observed these events is not his fault and he was doing his best to be candid and honest about what he did remember and what he didn't and all of what was  defense counsel said the part about purchasing the thermostat and you're right it doesn't turn the whole conversation into a substantive statement i think that's probably right he revisiting it now well we setting the stage for ineffective assistance of counsel if we are that's a subsequent proceeding it's not now but i don't think it should be a basis for ineffective assistance because even if it's found to be error on the trial as i set out in detail in my brief there's absolutely no possibility that it would have changed the result of this trial because even if you would allow it in substantively the entire statement that he gave to the officer it did not address the it did not address anything specific enough to connect it to say i had an hour by for that time it didn't happen that's why even if you do find that it was hard it was not harmed beyond a re this the jury heard the testimony from the officer so this isn't a question of what the jury did or didn't hear it was a question of whether an instruction that certain evidence could be considered substantively should have been given based on an acknowledgement but  all know the trial court wasn't going to go back and start choosing ok this inconsistent same you get to consider is impeachment but in this when you get to consider substantively that wasn't going to happen so practiced a jury heard everything the jury heard the mentioned because chamberlain didn't say it in the original work and he didn't say it and his testimony at trial there was no alibi to be given from chamberlain's testimony at the time of the purchase the time this was in the store the time to purchase exactly what had council says that if if the i guess the earlier he said my shift from two to nine was accurate at some point i mean either came in before or if he came in after the shooting some evidence of chaos on him blood whatever and i didn't just likely disagree with that i mean we know from the crime scene that the shoe impressions were made suggest that if you came hours after the fact he would have gone home and cleaned i mean you're you're not going to walk around if you are covered in blood and start purchasing thermostats for your landrover you're going to clean up and you know that he tossed issues because we found them in the trash along with a lot of other items including a shell casing and we're not there so they are in the reasonable doubt but the shell casing that was found the expert testified either one of the thirty eight millimeters that came sorry to change out of the victim's neck and out of the color behind where the driver in the victim's car either one of those bullets could've been fired from that shell casing again in a bag with the defendant we didn't have anybody testified this he had never shown he didn't have anybody testified that he didn't know what it looks like is those two issues were being added as things this state had to the circuit court judge should have done it is good that's our government our state make your argument but the argument has to be based upon the evidence or reasonable inferences from the evidence and e the proof against my client mr bronco in finding him guilty of first degree murder and that is one of the circumstances that the state has to put up with because they