ineffective assistance the first example was that he failed to object to the testimony before the grand jury that was given by a police officer who was not present at the arrest and  was actually presenting hearsay testimony and he never told the grand jury that his testimony was pure hearsay and the prosecutor carefully question the officer so as to keep that fact in the grand jury she just asked if i think the lake county prosecutor's office has learned something from out of turn and they did not hear him actually live but i think you can lie by omission too when you don't tell somebody that you never actually saw all of them but you  judicial process by this if they want to just can't police reports to grand juries you can do that too but it should be given the truth just because of the grand jury met the actual fact finders and the dog as you indicated did not say anything and what he did was he counted and he really didn't damage actually he put his paws on the railing and tried to jump over the porch which i don't think is the same thing as a downer champ person sent from an article mobster mahoney said to be started from the area where the defendant was held but he didn't tell us what article the dog was allowed to snuff so i don't know if he was brought to the defendant a human being i think that both of them would go to these classes but it's come to my home he was the only one to testify and he said he had taken training classes and he may have taken them with another dog this could have been a new d changed you know he cited the leftward case for nine hundred ninety eight which was pretty clear that the illinois position is not changed on the only thing the police had found was a bag of cannabis and they hadn't been found this cocaine and told the jury that the dog found it and the prosecutor argued that in closing argument which i think you know settled everything that it was and it's the main issue in the case when they could connect the defendant to drugs found in someone else's porch and this was a very handy drug crime area so it's not unlikely that someone very well lit area that the area was very well lit because no doubt of it being a very hands on primary up so they would have been able to see things there could be other reasons for why they feel there could have been any number of reasons but he didn't pursue it any further you did mention it to his post trial motion but it was sometime late by the time you brought it up and i'm unclear why i think it would have been brought up it should've been brought up in i'm not sure either based on the judge's comments that this case he found this case distinguishable from cruz and i don't think it's distinguishable from cruz because evidence was brought in for a factual proposition and they may have been and i can tell you that i regularly show him and one of the exercises he has to do is to have twelve i think genital articles legendre i have two which i don't pick out the judge picks them out he hands me that article i handle it the judge puts it at that time my back and the dots factor turned and i turn around and i say sam find it and sam goes out there and with only his no to do it and we've got to sit with this lady dogs around and regardless of whether there's sometimes hundreds of other dogs around and hundreds of people around santos out and find steph article with his l and so we need to see did the trial attorney do something wrong and if he said something i'm reasonably wrong and if so did it prejudice the defendant  corroborated officer about his testimony now it's important that this dog really didn't indicate on the cocaine and off he indicated on marijuana which the defendant was never charged with he did not thing being thrown it's a patio with a little metal railing i believe there's some pictures in the record of that the whole area is fenced off officer valko head found drugs limine would have been the exact same arguments that defense counsel strongly and strenuously argued in the trash out of court on exactly the same case law that appellate counsel is arguing before you today the jury could have been instructed to disregard this is maybe not the perfect answer but it is the answer that has always held for us in criminal cases death and one of the big premises of our jury system is set up properly instructed the jury is going to follow the instructions that are given to us or given to them so i think it's important  violation and second of all he has to prove that that violation prejudiced him and meth and the indictment should be dismissed only fifth unequivocal a clear that there was a denial the differences between oliver any way hiding i don't think that is an any way a lie i can't tell you that i am aware that tiger woods ran into a tree down in florida last week but i don't think you would say that i have witnessed it involving officer apo i think that i don't know how you could be more clear to the jury that this officer did not witness these events and furthermore  t all over quite honestly you can't the police officer lot of i mean he certainly gave the impression that not only had he witnessed these things but he actually  from the area where the defendant was being held that was my home is testimony he didn't explain what are called he was searching but he said he was doing an article search and then he explained it in the article search is when you follow  person sent that through no news from that article so now whether the dog changed his mind and went on a drug search is the question that the dog apparently didn't change his mind his found but and then he goes to lower heat and been there for fifteen minutes before he went over there to look he was guarding the scene although one thirty in the morning either there were parades of people passing through this area or selling drugs or there was nobody in they could have seen this if it was in plain view and there were three officers standing there waiting car in the area if drugs were visible i would think they would have seen them  he was timely in objecting to mahoney's testimony but then hale was already in the woods because valko had already testified and likewise counsel's testimony about her god so she should have presented that in the trial court if she wanted to establish that dogs are that reliable and maybe the supreme court would have some evidence to them but in this case there's no evidence this guy may actually track where they're for asking that his convictions