men byrne and he should have been granted a new trial as noted in the breeze here today she had his reason for not filing motions to press the defense statement does not sound trial strategy if the motion to suppress had been granted it would not have precluded him from raising the defense that the defendant didn't think anyone was in the house more importantly though if the statement had been suppressed it would have put the defendant in a far better position without the defendant's admission there may not have been a trial and all you know how we this needs case would be further for some reason the friends still decided to introduce the statement nothing would have prevented them doing so so for all these reasons charles charles wonderful if all judges were so clear in what they said he noted the defendant's claim the claim that he asked the police for an attorney he no detective grows testimony to the contrary and indeed it makes no particular sense that he would not this the judge noted that the defendant said and told his attorney of his request to the police for an attorney and he noted the oh defendant but turns contradictory testimony the judge saw the witnesses into term incredibility that's why brief your honor but he said he thought the defendant made a pretty nice appearance and that and seem credible and that together with is statement where he very openly and we talked to the police about this he thought was a real good shooting at the house but there was no malice it was reckless i didn't think anybody was there the judge found the credible very credible the attorney's testimony that the defendant agreed with his approach to th defense the judge noted that the fan then defense counsel got an involuntary manslaughter instruction the judge found the reasonable probability that the motion to suppress would have succeeded had it been brought he found that even if the motion to suppress was granted and was heard the people's case was still adequate the people still would have had enough evidence he found the defense counsel strategy was sound and indeed the people did with the testimony of that first witness mr griffin i believe his name was i'm uncertain of that person's name griffin he mr griffin  chiles the defending him at the scene with the gun and indeed is it his opening statement you know defense counsel said there's there's no question here about the defending shooting at the house it's just there's no way ladies and gentlemen of the jury these are in the when this amounts to a murder cases he had no reason to think the house was occupied and you'll see that from this very nice findings off and it's clear when you look at all the defendant's attorneys testimony he's not merely saying although he century use those words he didn't work all the defendant telling him that he premier in the trial the state also acknowledges in its own brief that this event was never specifically asked in the video if he thought anyone was in the house we go back to the fact that the trial coun explanation even if we get past whether we recall that and whether you didn't remember it whatever spin you put on that his reason for not pursuing a motion to suppress is flaw there's no reason not to pursue a motion to suppress it would have changed the case considerably and as a saving knowledge is in their own brief the video doesn't really go specifically to the what they're trying to show is that the defendant reasonably believe no one was at home in the house i might also point out that that's a very difficult burden to carry anyway the early morning hours it's a house a lot of peace lot there seem to indicate that you can presume someone is asleep in the house in the early