why would there be a problem if it was clear that there was no evidence leading him that way why would it be a problem that this evidence and that he is not volunteer only being in his state courts are a couple i realize where this is brought up there is no objection in the trial court and then when there is an objection the objection is basically to prejudicial fact based upon a tactical rationale behind jones and powell not apply in this situation i mean the rationale is is july will be and we don't really know what the jury's doing but we're going to give them the benefit of the doubt why does this still got power talks about the old refusing to allow defense to challenge convictions on the basis of inconsistency for the three reasons listed and the three reasons are that no one knows who benefits you know fashionable that would only him on first degree murder of the senate but they're saying we don't know what happened because you can't have first degree and second degree the same time just as you can't have intentional you know and i think that's why porter is a better comparison  you know the fact that it's a not guilty here isn't really the deciding factor because murder is murder and so the comparison between first and second degree murder f theory that the reason they did it is because they also submitted the brutal in heinous form and they came back with linking this which would be more consistent differently used these terms with is part of the reason why the d n a evidence is relevant and hold it as a whole we have to remember that relevant out of events is that which has a tendency to make something more or it found very low probative value of refusing a test to determine consumption as related to a charge for possession and they could have gone to the records if they wanted to you know get it from his previous incarcerations but now we are several months maybe a year behind them why would be jeopardized their case by putting it in what does it a  he didn't do it and therefore he must be afraid he's going to be found guilty in this case the wouldn't let him introduce evidence that other people pay the rent the same way he did over a period of time i realize it's a state's case and it's the state's burden but for the what was said about the financial motive evidence the pattern around payments for a tire apartment complex is basically doing precisely what such evidence is not supposed to be admissible for a showing of the poverty of an entire building how he wrenching pain meds were used in this case it was in combination with the fact that he had recently asked for a loan he recently hired additional expenses and all the sudden he had an unexplained amount of cash that he would not normally would otherwise happen as he was directly marino slaves to run them which is a case that talks about every federal circuit that's worked at this issue of whether or not its own business will to put in a refusal to consen a week we have the same result murder yes but we have different ways to do the act according to the statute yes but one of the issues is inciting different if they contain the same general was if you look at that accounts for it through sex they all have that attached to it  reasonable inference that he couldn't pay his running time i mean you saying that because other people couldn't pay the rent on time that that means that he was flush but he just chose to do it this way and that's a really i mean well a lot of you know but it's what other people do in a payments but how does he know that he asked for a loan from somebody else who is really the time ok so you know we get two things here and the fact that he asked for a loan and that he paid his rent differently