doubt where it offered no evidence to prove the identity of the specific person who fatally stabbed jetties i think garrett is particularly particularly instructive in this case in garrett this court reversed defend its murder conviction based on the kind of billy the defendant was found in possession of the victim's cell phone sim almost immediately after her death i'm not sure that's quite right i think what happened was that with this crime they also got a call around i believe was three thirty in the morning on the twelve and the stuff about the cell phone the recovery of the same car all of the stuff about pertaining to the equipment didn't even come to light and so i think sometime later the next afternoon and then of course focused their investigation testimony that that that own that her sim card was there's no question that her phone was being used after in session of proceeds from the robbery especially the day after that is correct but again i think timing is pretty important in here it's the fellow that it met and he was there as the getaway driver he didn't have any proceeds he'd have anything that connected him to the murder and in fact the individuals that he was supposedly with were never arrested with any proceeds there was no physical evidence whatsoever connecting anyone to that right he and the man the victims that was shot in the store there was no evidence whatsoever connecting his death to well the car's engine was established certainly to the extent there was no question that he died as a result of gunshot but there was no testimony about who well i think  there was some testimony by officer by some i think by this one who was patrolling the scene that some of the guards were seen coming out of the store yes but they were never connected never identified it was no connection there was no i'm recovered there were no proceed there were no fingerprints there was no physical evidence whatsoever to evict those other two people to the shooting that occurred in the store but i think as far as the scent cars go i mean that just basically shows that at some point he came into the pos of property that was stolen i think the problem is that we don't know the identity of the person who actually went into that apartment and took that property and it was the phone calls the phone calls that i think were critical were that immediately after the ship was discovered that there or at the time of death there were a couple phone calls connected to her phone that were within the hour after her death he was like twenty minutes twenty minutes and the question is what the evidence is that would have placed the sim card in his in the defendant's position at the time those calls were made and there really isn't any even he admits that he didn't get sim card until much later garrett two individuals point to the grocery store or fast food place or a small store and just shooting occurs or and i definitely heard but we're not sure who killed that maybe someone inside it was totally unrelated to those who entered killed somebody out of an argument and i think that's the analysis i'm not really quite sure but i think that's you know is the that maybe somebody it was totally unrelated to the attempted robbery that was going to happen the murder itself totally unrelated had nothing to do with those three guys that entered as part of the group that went there with the this here there is no question that the defended sent someone into this apartment to commit a robbery and that person whoever that person is committed murders wow so and there's only one person if there been multiple persons in that apartment you might say this is similar to kerik but it isn't similar together because there's only one person and that person was only there because the defendant pu discovered when the officers as part of their investigation they went i guess you know seriously thinking outside i'm sorry they found in a garbage bag that close to where the chinese lead it was i guess stashed in the bottom of a he still is the one who sent them in there well i guess my response is of the defendant state that i think a lot basically turn out to be false i think the state and i think part of the problem is he protecting someone believe it's pretty heavily in fact that the prosecutor pretty much conceded that until the jury well you know listen we can't believe this you can't believe parts of the statement you can't believe the person is that kind of a commonsense sort of reasoning him guilty of murder a dirty theory and he had the proceeds and that it was his idea to go and it was an easy robbery he called it a lick very easy link and there's evidence in the record that no doubt the woman was killed somebody came into her apartment she was stabbed multiple times so just suggest that the jury didn't believe it and again the jury can believe whatever part that they want but there's no question this woman was killed and she was stabbed and he jury didn't believe that there was this identifiable person that there are questions specifically was related to that very point that they specifically asked the court you know we're not certain we don't know who this and didn't he ask question and or tell them separates this case from the case is that you recognize when this particular instruction is a political one others you know when it when yes the instance where for example you have a couple of cold hearts you know typically it's usually in a gang kind kind of context they go and very should not drive those or whatever and you have multiple guns going off in just a matter of trying to identify which barely actually struck the victim you know at least there you have an identifiable group of people someone it was never identified but in that situation that someone is never identified either doesn't matter who ultimately fired that gun to kill that person it's everybody if everybody that's my point because we don't have to get what you yeah well in any again in this case we have someone who has the victim's own after she was murdered and he was using them and he admits that he received that as a result that this is pretty much our principal case but again i think that coupled with the fact that the cases that the state cites that where they do recognize this you know lack of requirement as far as you know pointing out which particular person was the principal offender i think that's an important thing to consider i mean the state cites the case of cooper walker and cook and those all again involved identifiable  you'll have a chance for about ok but if i can for just focus on one more thing because i would like ok so i think we're quickly to issue two as well and again i think as far as the first issue goes i do think that language in five or particularly where you know we have some of these questions that were raised pertaining to one like well what it would have been the challenge what would been the basis for the challenge well the fact that there was this usual ok as to the cave let's address that right there i think had confusion that led him to confess improperly but then he clears up that confusion and a lead some to confess confess once again this time with a full understanding of the consequences of his confession so where is the heart  i think that at this level i guess in the context here i'm not sure that that the inquiries that quite that involved i mean it's off to send it back let's say we send it back for a hearing the judge says all right you're right we're going to suppress the first guy confession but the second confession is attenuated based on a full understanding of the defendant as to the consequences that he would be tried as an adult not just a minor he gave the statement the statement doesn't it and that that's i sure but i guess my point is we never got to that point and i think i think that's what's important here i think what's most important here is of course and i know that just as you go along certainly isn't enough accountability case and still sustain a conviction what about that what about that language where the true state would actually admits that he committed the crime that was not the language that was tendered to the jury in this case what the jury was told in this case is that you do not have to find the guilt of the principle in order to find deonte sauteing guilty of the death of j tom jennings especially when the standard review for this argument is under jackson whether any rational trier of fact can find all of the elements of the offense in the light most favorable to the state and the evidence in this case case excuse me clearly established every element of first degree murder beyond a reason let's say there's this thing how do you weigh in here because it seems victim step in this case the evidence clearly established that this defendant planned the robbery acted as a lookout during the robbery heard the victim screams during the robbery and then afterwards continued to associate with the principal by receiving the proceeds and the benefits of that robbery where he was using the cell phone the cell phone records and yell johnson's testimony both firmly established the trial that this defendant was using the proceeds from this robbery there was absolutely evidence connecting him to that did not exist and garrett defended as essentially offering a new rule of law in this case requiring the state to prove the principle of the offense which is unsupported by case law garrett is easily factually distinguishable from that case and cannot be read to provide a new rule of law essentially that the state now has to prove the identity of the principal and every accountability case especially where that would vitiate several convictions that have gone before what you look what what what do you think the rule of law is that comes out of here i believe the care is a very factually narrow case and that the rule of law and garrett is that you still have to prove the element beyond every reason every element beyond a reasonable doubt in the state was unable to do that and garrett it's anything in order and i don't think your it ever came out and said that the state suddenly has an additional element and an additional burden of proof and an accountability case but there were factual differences that you believed precisely distinguish here it from this case established that the statement was voluntary that any confusion over whether he would or would not be charged as an adult was immediately cleared up by the assistant state's attorney taking the statement while the state recognizes that special care does need to be given to that you're not really looking at the whole picture you've isolated the videotape fashion and don't really focus on these earlier claims that he was interrogated without being advised miranda he was interrogated with out  or a juvenile officer present that the initial statements he gave were clearly in violation of his rights and that those should be considered in determining whether there's a reasonable probability that he that the motion would have been granted that with the earlier statements the record does not bear out to put its claims defendant was not under arrest he was not even a suspect at that point what happened was the police took him and tyree fell off the street and brought them in for was how he came to be in possession of the victim cell phone once the question continued to find it was given his miranda rights his mother arrived at the station when she had to leave a youth officer officer chappell was present the police did take every care to ensure that this juveniles confession was voluntary and that his will was not overboard to for the offense committed by the other person even though the other person who is claimed committed the offense who it is claimed that's what part of the point that i was trying to make in my first argument w dispute that the defendant did not commit the crime and the state is claiming that someone other than the defendant committed the crime i mean i think i'm not sure if i'm following you  because i don't know why i just know he wasn't identified i just know that the state so as not to believe that particular part of the state but i also i think it's pretty evident that the jury by their question chose not to get an in the context where we are now again it just sort of probabilities of course we have no way of knowing because it wasn't litigated all right well let's look at everything else ok aside from you know obviously his use and all of these you know almost kind of a to it to the extent that we have some of keeping in mind of course that juveniles are easily you know it's recognized that are easily exploited that third that they succumb to improper pressures and that type of thing that right we have everything from the point at which he was but i don't even think again little also pointed out that in a case where there's really no other strategy here the strategy was no accountability reasonable doubt which you argued very actively there's many cases out there that say that you know when a lawyer decides whether or not to file both it's clearly a matter of stretch well you know certainly that it's deferential but it's certainly not ironclad and i think what's important about little the talks about instances where either there's no other strategy where even notwithstanding or some other strategy that that may be available like in this case the absence of a principle well i think that there's no question that this was certainly one of his best if it's about his only whether the facts aside from the absence of a principle there was no absolutely no downside to pursuing a motion on this particular ground in other words trying to flesh out and get into some of the circumstances and questions that were raised by this particular confusion and but aspires you know the prejudice goes i know that the state  sometimes it's about any and then wrap up yet in my final comment of course is certainly would have changed the outcome or at least impact it which is all that's required a successful motion would have certainly done that so for the reasons