second i said it's case number one one three one one one three that is correct but this is a consolidated mayor and the other two numbers one make it clear for the record also includes four one four zero zero one fo mark when there's briefly raised three issues on appeal this morning i'd like to focus on the first issue relating to his d n a motion and i'm happy to answer questions on any issues one would be hard pressed to find a better case suited for d n a testing under section one sixteen dash three of them this case where the state's evidence against mark linger was very close consisting of circumstantial evidence made up of imprecise scientific evidence and unreliable biased witness testimony where identification has always been at issue in this case and where the testing mark winger seeks has the scientific potential to produce new non commutative evidence materially relevant to his claim of actual innocence mr ringer met all of relating to specifically the handle of the hammer and roger harrington's clothing and he met a he established a prima facie case that identity was at issue he has always contested his skills and has denied killing down a winger and claim that he killed roger harrington in defense of this case always boils down to who killed on a winner and so identity clearly was the issue in this case facie case that chain of custody has been maintained and we can we know that by a few different different reasons first the party stipulated to chain of custody at the trial of the low and the state again stipulated to the chain of custody having been maintained during be hearing and the d n a motion that that proceeded at the trial of all at the end of the trial defense counsel i asked that the evidence impounded and the trial court allowed that and additionally section one sixteen dash for relating to the preservation of evidence requires that if the state wants to destroy or discard of any preserved physical evidence and in a murder case that a hearing has to be conducted in order to do so and in that in this case no such thing was ever conducted so my when your did establish a prima facie case that chain of custody has been maintains he also sabbaths the testing that that the testing that he seeks now was not done at the time of trial and again the state stipulated below that touch tanais was not done that it that d n a testing was not done on touch d this case and it's there while there are a few a few pieces of roger harrington's clothings that underwent some d n a testing it's not clear never been tested for the crap you number and with respect to the handle of the hammer the only test that was performed on the hammer itself was fingerprint analysis which could not be actually completed because the fingerprint on the that mark winger is asking for a low copy number testing can be done on the fingerprint of the a handle so while the the smudge fingerprint might not have been good enough to conduct fingerprint analysis it certainly could be could be good enough to proceed with both copy number d n a testing additionally the testing those establish that roger harrington's touch d n a is on the handle of that hammer which would support his defense that roger harrington actually murdered his wife it would also support his defense that he shot roger harrington in defense of his wife additionally he's asking that roger harrington's clothing be tested for touch d n a to rule out that mark winger rolled roger harrington's body over so that he could harrington's clothing or body at all that would go a long way to supporting mark when you're stefanski that you didn't see the crime scene and he and the incident occurred in the fashion that he testified to i tri state's case and the state's version of events was completely speculative and so these two tests could actually support mark winger's version of the evidence and it could be mat small amount of d n a that is transferred by touch rather than by by substance but rather than by blood or semen or saliva that's what it means when we refer to touch today well copy number d analysis it's the type of analysis that touched you and me is analyzed by and it uses the same methodology that has been accepted by this court time and time again and has then accepted in the scientific community as reliable or i'm sorry generally accepted in the scientific community which is s t r analysis and amplification and both of those types of  procedures and processes have been assumed have been accepted by this court as generally accepted in the scientific community and so now that technology has advanced since the time of the original testing in this case we can do testing and very minute amounts of d n a and that's what he's referring to in his motion for d n a testing it seems that it's being discussed in the abstract  as i understand it and how are we as a corporate view to accomplish a determination of whether or not this is something that has the scientific potential winger only needs to establish that the testing that he's seeking d n a testing has a scientific potential in you know as it stands as a general proposition to produce new non commutative evidence materially relevant to his plans so the weight and the the reliability of the actual results of this test are really not at issue for this court isn't there to establish that it that it has the scientific potential to produce this evidence i think that stating that d n a testing which is again as terra testing and p c r amplification a scientific method to produce new nine cumulative evidence is enough in any case and you know if you look at any d n a motion case there's always a risk that the motion can be granted testing could be done and not enough d n a evidence is is available for and an accurate result and so it's up to the expert at that time who's doing the analysis to determine is the sample large enough is that the threshold doesn't have to be go to be reliable those are all factors that come into play in any d n a case and in fact there's as here testing pieces that allow for the admission of five point tests and seven point test now we're at thirteen but the admission of this evidence has happened and so we're even at a lower burden here where we're just asking the testing performed once the tests come back then mr oriel would have a postcondition petition if the results were potentially in his favor and then we could go from there at his conviction hearing the state can ask can make the argument that testing was unreliable or that there was too much contamination but those issues are always in play in a d n a motion  to to state and prove that the testing that he's seeking has the scientific attentional to produce material evidence and i think that mark map that burden and i don't think that that burden is as high as proving needing to prove at this stage that the outcome of the testing would be the you know that the results would be very high or very strong or very reliable that all goes to the weight of the evidence later but at this point he needs to establish that the scientific method has the potential to it's relevant evidence and here i think you the hammer or looked at the hammer and said yes it's in the same condition as it was when i put it in that bag the blood is still there the fingerprint is still there except that some bigger print analysis was performed and there's some residual glue from that analysis but that that actual d n a substance would be the fingerprint and that and that would be touched d n a is not different from any other kind of d n a what touched d n a means is that profile so in particular that handle that's what he's referring to and then in terms of roger hearing his clothing he asked for testing i believe his socks his pants and shirt again and you know the the morse an object is touched the more likely d n a is to be left on that object so the hammer was wielded for probably longer than sixty given how weak the state's case was against him d n a testing is the gold standard of scientific evidence compare that to the scientific evidence presented by the state a trial which was consisting of of a few  blood type while typing analyses which just showed that some blood of hers was in some places and some blood pressure harrington's was in other places and blood spatter evidence which is a very that as the experts themselves statute allows for testing and retesting in indiana situations so that more clear results can be obtained and so the the seeking of d n a further d n a analysis in this case is in line  statutes intent in fact the statute has been amended since the first time mark winger filed a d n a motion and again after he filed this d n a motion to be more broad and to allow d n a testing after things have been after items have been retested using new methodology and they even included the language that even if the test results do not lead to exonerating evidence and that's exactly what we have here that's exactly the standard that mark that this court not take judicial notice of the internet sites listed in defense reply brief which defendant claims would show that the date that the forty eight hour episode aired as it is not a matter of common knowledge or an official internet site such as  under section one sixteen there's three defendants in additional testing of evidence which has already been subjected to testing have a greater burden to establish their case so not only does the statute established in burden and wit change so actual innocence i don't believe style because i i think that this is the crime scene was just such a mass of blood and everybody's touching everybody i don't believe that even if they found  harrington d n a on that hammer that it would prove anything well if there was evidence that would support harrington having held that you know that would certainly be inconsistent with the state's right that's not even central to the case you're testing will not refute other evidence of such as defendant's incriminating statements to d m shall and i didn't write all these down but i'm i'm just going from memory something like dead men don't talk it be simpler if she was dead all you have to do is going to find a body the position in testing will not refute the position of the bodies in the blood spatter as compared to and to the testing requested employs scientific method generally accepted within the relevant scientific community not they they're really knowledgeable about case from the fifth district and in that case the appellate that the defendant in his motion stated that identity was at issue in this is when sixteen extreme motion identity was the central issue in this trial enough and they even go into the strength of the of the state's case in this case and they say  that that doesn't matter that he's established those things that are required by section one sixteen actually and in that that case that was enough and i would say that mark winger established just as much in this case but instead of identify and stated that he has it was a simple identification case d n a have little to do with time it got so they actually talked about those types of things at the hearing and on appeal of the court reversed i don't know in this case if  type of testing was a challenge by the state in the trial level but it certainly wasn't an issue for the appellate court and in this case the trial the state didn't challenge the  reliability of the d n a testing at the trial level alone and in fact the discussion and the ruling on this d n a motion had nothing to do with the type of testing that mark when it was requesting the trial court erroneous slee today he did attach several articles about low copy number d n a and an article about touch d n a so it was in there and he did provide enough evidence for the court to to rule on it that