trial there was no objection to the admission of the prior statement correct yes sir trial counsel referencing the our first brady case so it's truly an issue of state procedure said that he mean it's very clear from the context of the the entire proceeding in fact prior to counsel making his his objection to the introduction that testimony there's several pages of testimony in which just i mean at the trial court have that you know counsel had failed to object at all to me in reduction of the statements and so there's no question that the procedure because of the statement occurred there as far as the confrontation cla issue i don't think it could have been raised on direct appeal because there was no confrontation clause objection at trial so that so you believe your peers back dad within martina's yes yes i think we are i think that we are within much is because here we have it's very clear from the record trial counsel was not there was not considering or was disregarding the confrontation clause there was i think a fairly obvious confrontation cost problem particularly the time that he made the objection mr presley's testimony that he had no intention whatsoever of meaningful participation then i think that when you have a witness who refuses to meaningfully participate in testimony you cannot have a witness or you can have a meeting d i don't believe so given that mr preston said specifically that he did not shoot and he was not the shooter  stanfield who said she wasn't in a position to see that so when you have all of these conflicting accounts and the ultimate question of who fired the shot comes down to do you believe  comment you talked about meaningful cross examine examination i'm not sure that that's exactly it doesn't matter for the purposes of this question we're where do you see the line be thankfully this case doesn't require the court to take on that sort of flattery because there was a complete refusal to meaningful it participate in cross examination i think that would have to be a case by case basis to determine you know how meaningful it would the competition cause the second is trial counsel's failure to make a constitutional objection to that admission and the third failure is he serious counsel who recognize the underlying cause it's that competition cost problem to present be issue in a way where he could yes i mean i think you know what brings us here is a serial failure of attorneys to competently represent mr preston and so we're trying to unwind the clock let me ask you this if we determine the president's confrontation clause claim has merit in order  both object on the basis of the pennsylvania rules of evidence and i want it and concede to one piece of evidence without even addressing the compensation clause issue there's there's just no reasonable strategy if he thought that they said it it should come in for some reason why object at all to any of it considering that the testimony and statement were essentially the same what about the argument that  close to continue to let him just sit there and say no comment and probably jury is just prejudicial my client i mean you know at some point we have to cut it if that's all he's going to do that it's the same as if he stood in front of this jury would submit that even if that could be construed as a confrontational cars objection when the court declined to address it in those terms he reasonable counsel would have reiterated this is also a competition cost problem and i think about  available physically but he has made clear at this time that he will not answer questions so he might be on the stand but he has informed the judges and former counsel i refused to answer questions about despite this granted immunity so yeah ok ms butler had turned the corner well first of all he was friendly with us like right there sitting on the porch together and he said to her you know i'll be right back at a fair just for the record pres step if there's any response that really satisfies from your perspective the confrontation because it allows counsel to work with it in whatever way they person who actually committed yet now mr quest there was a presley mr preston testified that he participated in a soft now that salt requires a different level of mens rea at the malice required for third i think that my colleague might have inadvertently misrepresented what happened under active direct examination the prosecutor didn't go on for hundreds of questions hundreds of pages asking questions of mr presley he went on for hundreds of pages because he read into the record presley's prior testimony at its own trial there really weren't that many questions offered to mr presley on direct examination answers to those questions when they were no comment particularly illuminating i don't think th where you have somebody who's willingly participated on direct exam and then clams up on cross even if it were me that seems more offensive to the confrontation clause than somebody who refuses because of bait in any way the point of the confrontation clause is to limit the government's ability to present evidence against the defendants to which the defendant cannot respond now if they're able to present even more evidence on direct examination that is eighty more serious cross competition was violated by the admission