may please the court made a missionary summary and they represent mr c in this appeal your honor this case is so complicated and it has so many issues and so many very problems that it really really can be overwhelming but we were able to narrow it down police report saying that they had something against cooler folks and rico votes were dog with his nickname is going to be they had something against him and that was why he named him that is one of the affidavits of one of the statements that was made to one of the people in the in briefs it's not a scientific term when it's used by a judge or is making a finding with the judge is saying in his opinion that d n a came from this individual doesn't necessarily  how many people in that mix profile how many different people showed up in that mix profile one two three four they didn't test all of those people we don't know if any of the other ones showed up in the database we don't know who they wore it could have been could police reports and never really fully investigated so nice as a potential other intruder so so leases are the major theory of his defense oh yes it was but he didn't have anything to back it up it's one thing to standing army it is another thing to have testified that he always thought so luis was one of the jurors who were yes but then when he asked trujillo was there was a prosecutor's objection that was sustained and he never went any further with that impeachment him to be clear we it was a defendant not to the exclusion of your client there was actually another person know there was a different third person the police reported that that was the time right at the time yes but the way it went down depending on which version you believe in the second intruder way to the dining room and he's the one that bl any more question thank you d i've not had in any of the cases requiring cooperation advocates to be one hundred percent conclusive as we know will a conviction may be sustained but circumstantial evidence and here we did have d n a that had a very very very high odds of looking as if it was clear who put it in these terms close to a match although saying typically  cannot be matched it didn't cooperate the testimony that the defendant was gone who was present in the home as well as he could not be excluded from the glove obviously that was not as you know the mass could have come from something else or it could have been do fact that he was involved with drugs from an early age is present in juvenile fiction as far as the business goes that comes out before in the facts of this specific case where they want to rob the house for the purpose of taking drugs you hired he says testimony that said we met him several times to get drugs from him whether it be a business aspect of it existed from an early age that is less clear but his list was probably not the person in the house ortiz struck by his statement that it was so obvious that was driving it was the defendant who was in that house and the fact that the physical evidence was not matching that each which puts solace in the house the it was trial strategy notch she further investigate where there was not the evidence that was supporting it and counsel do the best you could making making the argument that it was soulless he did the cross examination the best he could he was not getting the answers he wanted to hear was no longer something with the potential damaging evidence that could have come out at the jail recordings pursuing the alibi witness or the odd alibi evidence wheaton commented that that would have been more damaging than how you put the evidence found so i honestly i honestly don't know from the record whether he did not an alibi defense the record doesn't support that he was ready to call i believe ms montero but when that came up to trial the strategy changed and the alibi defense was was not the best the other question i don't know profile even found around the middle so it would not be unusual for his d n a to be there as for the sentencing argument don't dislike the criminal history going from nine hundred ninety five until two thousand and seven and having only a minor cannabis charge is not a drug business person that is not even a heavy user in my opinion from least what we've seen in other on the eve of trial dot com but then in the opening statements he says to judge sheldon i'm going to be presenting evidence that he was in chicago and couldn't even have been there during this offense this is bad lawyering that's not reasonable assistance