additionally in one of our supreme court's opinion people are drawing seventy miles an hour within the city limits is that right that's correct and crashes them to the house and then here's the driver side doors immediately next to the storm dorothy and see that glass panel up the gun but again the first known surrounding these items it's just not within the scope of the stipulation there's certainly a line of questioning that would be within the s of the stipulation counsel that i ask is for instance is it possible that loaded that you are touched these items without any fingerprints certainly that goes to the question of point here in this case and would ask this court man for a new trial n i think it's important to focus on the parameters of this analysis and the question is not whether or not the in can stand here today and they can argue we credible argument that there was some turned of explanation for how this handgun got came to be between the screen door an most favorable to the state in the prosecution in this case or whether or not the argument that he was indeed guilty of the crime charge was improbable and reasonable and satisfactory and in this particular instance that is not the ca here there is a very clear line of rational logical thought that starts with the defendant cutting through a parking lot then leaving a police officer in the city of champagne a high speed chase where you think crashes into a home there is a period of time residents and the police arriving and capturing on video what happened after that thank you roger the exact amount of time we have a video is roughly forty two seconds from when we can see the officers video it is defendant was found guilty of having done which is exit in the vehicle dropping a handgun between the two doors and then running from behind twenty two seconds while it may not sound like a substantial amount of time is more than sufficient to do this particular however as the state has noted common sense would tell us that the guns position was actually exactly how one would expect to find a gun that had been dropped tween the two doors whether or not it was between a pane of glass that could become dislodged and wish the had the video from the squad car on the defendant should it have captured the defendant putting the car between you in the door no your honor should from viewing the so the fact that the bat video did not catch anything certainly does not help us in terms of being able to definitively say exactly what happened so we're all saying council mention that you can see the top of the door i guess the opening where it would have been inserted as a result credibility as a nation as it is at issue here that if in it testified to the jury that the weapon was not his but he did not have a weapon in that he did not place that people between the two doors the jury clearly from the outcome of the trial found this not credible this is particularly bring up at this point in time because questions of credibility are difficult to assess here this court is not able to see the defendant that's money and great deference must be given to the jury in terms of its satisfactory reasonable based on now we have this window of approximately three days prior to this incident where the homeowner was there and you heard me ask opposing counsel about the owner's testimony is far as whether or through that door when he was examining the property i do not recall the testimony being bad explicit however i do believe that that was the inference made by the homeowner's testimony i cannot point to a single point in to start by focusing on what the inquiry because again the question is not whether or not this was a perfect trial free of any potential but whether or not it was a fair trial and whether or not the plane or stage there was some their horse that is simply that that the state had not been able to prove actual possession of a weapon through any laboratory tests there was no d n a available and there were no fingerprints now obviously that doesn't undermine the fact that the circumstantial evidence can still yet nonetheless prove that it didn't spin it was in possession of the weapon as is needed to support his conviction however under the circumstances it would now be the slightly unusual defendant in a way the question the propriety and again here with the question is whether or not certain evidence should or should not have been admitted and where we are operating under the paradigm of an abuse of discretion it would be and so so those things all add up to two reasonable doubt as to whether or not you place the gun in between the us in addition to the state points to people versus multiply by five direct the clerk to give that credit normally on the record the trial court is insane this amount has to go to a certain fine or fear or anything like that so i'm not quite sure what you  wondering if can you just lay out what is it your is that you're requesting in terms of that ninety five dollars you saying that that wasn't included in the eleven hundred twenty dollars identified by the court as finds