and kept walking well to the supreme court has said testimony it's not testimonial because testimonial is find as someone who bears testimony solemn declaration to prove a fact was it was he was offered primarily to show that the and asked the jury was instructed to show that it was continuing into the limitations period your statue of stati  exists isn't that exactly what happened in the courtroom on that occasion well it was but it was offered to show that it was offered for statue of limitation purposes  be deeply knowledgeable about new jersey state law but i was i thought it was actually not even disputed that the state had the burden to show that a crime was committed within the statute of limitations and that under new like i said it i'm not going to test my it's not a statement it's not a statement which is which someone believes is going to be used at a later trial it's from an objective reason a person you know a person standpoint it's just not something to prove a fact well when you say it's really struggled with that we say this is not something to prove a fact you offered it to prove that the state offered it to prove there's an ongoing conspiracy look at have these people are behaving this is behavior which communicates and it what it communicates is we're still in this together i've got your back i'm not going to retch out that was that that was the explicit purpose for which was offered and the explicit argument that was made by the state so i'm very puzzled i'm just getting have a hard time get my head around the assertion that it wasn't being offered to prove guilt i mean it was the closing argument look at how his behavior in the courtroom tells you they're still in the conspiracy work out what does it mean if it doesn't mean in closing in some asian look at this now you can find him guilty that you're offering it substantively to prove guilt well but if you look at the douglas cases it talks about how there has to be some substance there has to be some subsidy of testimony upon which beyond that upon which there is no there's no cross examination testify as i as i said before it's not a statement and then there's the chesters the winks the nods the the non verbal asked those those who are first of all they will meet the defendant himself so it misnomer it's not an element in terms of going towards guilt well it's a relative in the sense that if you don't prove it under state law you list and it is a fact termination you filed that is the but you call it supplemental briefing but the priest that you created for that you meeting for the client not me and you specifically for the new jersey state supreme court didn't make an argument based on douglas is that information about new jersey state law is part of the problem he's here that the district court addressed things that might be considered to be aspects of state law and not federal law you know our first point is of course a straight out of jackson vs review that this stage failed to prove any evidence whatsoever  your finally says in the sacred there's a specific argument that unquote under new jersey law the statute of limitations were raised is an element of the crime unquote and that's what you've argued here right so if if you're going to be talking about what is and isn't a matter of new jersey state law and therefore something uniquely within the province of the new jersey city supreme jersey state law of how the new jersey state statute of limitations operates and what that in turn requires in the way of proof in a new jersey prosecution under new jersey's little rico statu i mean it sounds like what you just read is the new jersey supreme court about new jersey law and if that's true why is that something that we should be reviewing  of limitations element and they did it by showing stuff that happened prior to january twenty second right from ninety fourth their argument is basically because the conspiracy was viable up until january of that's exactly what the new jersey supreme court might know they define the statute of limitations as an element of the crime then they got all of this film was everywhere we statute of limitations just curious to know whether you think it's accurate or inaccurate he said to us the as a matter of new jersey practice the briefing in the appellate division is submitted to the supreme court and a of crawford no even if he did if one were no matter how one views this testimony about testimonial doesn't matter because douglas says what it says this is like douglas if you look at the course that this person did something you can draw inferences about what happened here cuz if he did he did communications both by word and behavior communicative behavior took place and never mind the fact that you can't confront this guy and you can't cross examine the defendant the jury ought to hear this and draw inferences that's true how do you get a well let's say in all but don't worry about  all the problem identified in douglas is the defendant can't cross examine somebody who refuses to take the stand and testify that's what happened here and nevertheless the state offered into look at the the nature of the substance of the text test my that tells the narrative the complete narrative that this bending can get it this particular crime such as in this case the mortar ok but such as this case conspiracy we didn't need to show predicate acts all we needed to show was at the inception that he expressed loyalty and part of that moral thing was i'm not going to reveal