the names of seven such is only one of those media or the dash five one and that has to be determined by some other additional information other than what those sites tower it's common knowledge that people understand cell phones emit signals that reach a tower but beyond that and how about how they reach that which tower they reach that is not common knowledge as is my contention  how could put another way all the things that you related don't seem to relate to the simple fact that in one instance the thing pain doff something that was eight miles away as opposed to the second game which was within the vicinity of his birth with those two the fact that he didn't  the first time on the north west canal doesn't necessarily establish that he was present during the robbery at but it goes a long way to establish that this road that is exactly the issue that we have because we do not know that it the proximity again does not necessarily relate to each tower a cell phone pings  explaining how the pieces occur what can happen i have a few other examples before you go there weren't there were records that were actually introduce possibly over direction introduced to the jury that they could look at about these towers right on the foundation that the record business records ballastic related to the contents were not think the jury was looking at the cracks so why couldn't the why couldn't the testimony about generally what they said and what the book might come before the jury probative those records need context and that the wanted to be able to write that accurately is selling who's trained in recognizing these you know patterns occur the towers without contention as to what they said that information standing on its own is too prejudicial and well let me acceptable to be added our intention is where the phone was tracked and therefore if he's claiming the he wasn't with the phone then how does all this pain me how easy is stablished if if he wasn't with the phone anyway how is this so incriminating or substantial that you claim to make all of these assumptions and maybe some believed him maybe some did not mean he still associated the fact that you know oh that's only fair if you got that power so clearly he was there you know that could have played into their decision we do not know how and longitude that was in the cell phone records if you look at the time of the calls and the phone numbers between the calls he heard christian ross christian ross emerson state that at nine o two he called the defendant's phone and they spoke for parker approximately thirty four seconds regarding whether to go through with the armed robbery and that was towers looking at the records there's case law that's overwhelming in terms of the point that if the only evidence being placed into evidence this specifically the information from the cell towers that that is not expert testimony that that  think it's important to point out that the test when we detect a readout in terms of the radius of the cell tower was not listed by the people that was a question of cross examination by the defense attorney the defense attorney was the only one in this case who attempted to elicit with may have been considered expert testimony that was not brought forth by the people the people would never asked detector greta to state an exact pinpoint the location of the defendant davis that was a situation where the detective was asked to describe something that was contradicted knowledge and that was where they were stooping a sort of phone number so for example my personal cell phone number i was using someone you know had any concerns about it the big premise is that it's not about cell phone records neatly they believe the witnesses didn't even look at the cell phone records correct that's correct that might  consideration because as the defense theory was put forth the cell phone records really shouldn't matter if they believed the defense's theory of the case as just historians and stated else and united stated that christian ross harris and took the black fan that that would actually further make sense and corroborate the defense's theory of the case just as a i think it's important to note too that this case hinges upon the important evidence which was the testimony of witnesses and i think a really important witness in this case is to go she had no bias in this case and she stated that to defend it and the defendant's girlfriend attempted to have her second two thousand and eleven between nine and nine thirty i think that's important because the defense's case rested solely on alibi witnesses it's akili young who had like i said no bias or interest in this case stated i didn't see the defendant located something such as google maps is not something that an expert that even an expert to be able to introduce into evidence in terms of the closing argument by the people counsel argued that the people need inferences from the cell phone records and just as i believe that in this situation the state obviously has a path to argue inferences and not only that but the comments that counsel cleaning were inappropriate those were made in her bottle and i think it's important to know that during the defense's closing argument the defense spent a great amount of time trying to discredit the two eyewitnesses at trying to discredit the two co defendants and in this situation the so called records that the people were speaking out reduced to corroborate whatever witnesses said and when i say crime rate not only into the location but i think it's more important that the crime rate the two to two defendants were able to describe to it see the time of the cell phone calls that they had with the defendant regards to the armed robbery but what those conversations what the context was in the duration of those cell phone calls discussing when he said emergency search warrant for cell phone records was that at that point they had no leads and that was something that they utilized to try to figure out who was involved in the armed robbery the baffling detective read and never testified that the defendant's specific cell phone places him in a certain brainiest for a one to three mile area of the armed robbery that was not the testimony it's just what it was just purely what his course of investigation was and what materials he was gathering to even have a lead to follow up on so that it's important to draw a distinction there does he have to describe he is investigatory process to you know step by step by step indicating this is what i did work in the city he secured then and from that information i went forward with my investigation i think you know order to have a full record in order to have a timeline that makes sense to deters and to lead them to not may have their own questions or wonder how the officer got to from point a to point b i think it's important to have all of the information out there so the jurors can kind of have a better understanding as the only information they would have had was i order documents and then i ended up at the defendant's home that wouldn't make too much sense and so i think it's important to give context for the jurors to understand how the officer got from point a to point b exact and not only additionally exactly how cell phone towers work was something that is above the purview of the late witness for example like i spoke about earlier if you were using someone who's going to talk about the  cell phone amongst multiple towers when there's not even phone calls happening where it's a phone that's just connecting to a cell phone tower for a g p s for example or for example in the case that came out of the seventh circuit people versus  expert is explaining a more thorough way in which cell phone towers are used to have the ultimate conclusion that they can pinpoint within feet where a defendant was located on a certain date or time was d necessary in this case under the circumstances was it critical evidence in this case no it was not in terms of the evidence in this case the steam operated under the theory that the so phone records merely corroborated what  indicated a person who is an expert who has a qualified is an expert he can you testify as to his investigation this police officer however our contention is that it is just too prejudicial and to say ever said did the record contain a question where the person the interrogator asked the witness within a reasonable degree of certainty expertise relative to cell phone technology your honor i do not hope to recall precisely to the best of my knowledge in recollection i don't believe there was but i think and i'm sorry to