she's not able to be here after her period all five girls have the time she will be listening to the internet presentation she has submitted some general questions that we are asking so she's very much a part of the of forgery retail theft and theft all of the charges were being sent claims that she used counterfeit one hundred dollar bills and three stores at the hunley outlet mall on october thirty first twenty ten we are not challenging to both of our our claims and then is that the liability of identification testimony is not the same as the credibility of the witness who is making the identification a witness can be s they were able to march the person from the time you came into the store because the store wasn't that busy i can't remember which one it was being able to watch somebody in the store is one thing being able to you know taking notes knowing the appearance of the person so that you can remember the afterwards when you have absolutely no reason to do stuff is another hour this is a situation where you get to the fantasy opportunity to observe the degree of attention this is a situation was only that in there not i didn't cation testimony but fear the defendant's own statements that tend to be significant are considered inconsistent her yes she told two entirely different stories about how she obtained the hundred dollar bill monster will if the jury doesn't believe her butt the jury believes the witnesses and it's a question of credibility how can we this court step in and say that decision was wrong i think because it really in this case it really wasn't a question of credibility so much as it was of the reliability and they are different they're required ability of the identification testimony was  you're looking right at somebody when you're engaged in a transaction taking money giving change and handing over the merchandise i mean there's one five like they're about to be locked up in jail and she stands out that way so which could explain a b and b what about another factor that the jury considered and that is  again when she is confronted and we have to talk about p c b g because that's where the hundred dollar bill in that forgery comes to light she tenders there are the clerk now that for whatever reason doesn't like it she uses that little pen and says i'm sorry i can't take this i don't think it's real do you have some other way to pay she pulls out money and then says well you know if it's fake just keep it now by any stretch of the imagination she's a student who either made this money fixing dinner or just exchange did with that woman she had no idea who she was so she could eat and she gave her valid s currency and took the one hundred dollar bill meaning i'm going to be angry i'm not going to be gone oh if you just keep it what the sheriff has to look at they are and everybody's testified she was calm i'm assuming possibility that meeting these women were in some way connected with each other however the state didn't charge my client on the theory of accountability and the jury didn't make any final and i gotta believe that the state assume the burden of this other woman if you followed who matched the description you've gotten from the signer fragrances approached this car and started to move in essentially she got into a moving car i mean the jury's listening to this too this is a rather unusual circumstance read the jury was given the basic instruction about you are in the you know you're the judges of the credibility you have to observe the witnesses in their opportunity to observe which is a  on this was not in trask in the brief power around to my past to at this time i soon talk about that and really the reason why this is come up is because it's about an article of clothing and the defendant has taken this opportunity to try to make a difference and say that you know credibility you can be really into your conviction about how you something looks but that somehow makes it out reliable  what we have here it is really comes down to clothing and it does come down to credibility and it comes down to what the jury believes the actual description lies now we have this initial description and how which circumstances committee a positive identification we were in stores there was lying fully shereen was greeted her and there were a hundred dollar bills although they said that that was not on her market will they still had to seek the talks about how the they were virtually identical to each other i think actually in defendant's review she mentioned that the police officer testifying that that was from his he witnessed that they were handed with this counterfeit al it has the same serial number as the other two stories this is what brought her into the spotlight so the two koreas the suspects they presented her in a photo  which had accumulated the facts in highly questionable circumstantial evidence and here we don't know how highly questionable circumstantial evidence only had a strategy of clothing which can be written off as they were focusing on the face the identify of her face any reason for counseling not to know what this is going to draw the jury's attention to that would be harmful to her client nothing in this case the people submit that this is this instruction this is the perfect case where the defense attorney in the trial court would look at this evidence the way you do and conclude that it was not going to help it's the defendant here to have use instruction before the jury will hear it there's that those still words were no not on trial that day is about these three stories these two stories that she's trying to appeal and so defend against these counterfeit bills think you and the people respectfully