durango if i'm squinting even struggling here today it's not because i don't understand your argument i'm trying to get used to using reading glasses so i apologize in advance if i seem a little more be wilderness than  kill her if she locked him in as he was in the process of leaving him in a scene from the force when the murder of her own today i'm going to ask the court to reverse the conviction evidence the court did not the find the full extent of a constituted testimonial statement they gave some basic parameters noting that statements made in formal settings to governmental officials there would be used as evidence in the prosecution of an all fired as testimonial state these statements need to be subjected to cross examination before they are  the court not limit the scope of what constituted a testimonial state for purposes of the constitution because there is a question as to what constitutes whether a testimonial statement can involve statements that were made to nine governmental individuals that is the issue in this case whether the statements that the victim made to her friends and relatives  our testimony or not that is the issue really in this case whether the statements made in this case or testimony it's an open question the supreme court has not decided one way or the other whether such statements can be testimonial there are two views as to whether statements that are makes non governmental individuals qualify as testimony or state the first year which i imagine the court you find applies in this case is the view that testimony and subject to the confrontation and in this case on my argument is that the statements made by the lies of cleary to her friends and family that  the defendant had tried to kill her on if she left and where intended to be conveyed to the police in case something did happen to her they were intended to prompt an investigation of the event if something did happen to her the alternative view that she was making these statements as casual observations to friends and family were actually supported the find this case that she was her statements were testimonial because they were it's reasonable to conclude that she made them for the purpose of triggering an investigation and prosecution of her husband if something happen but that would be one ration now that has been discussed are in that by the academics and the case law now on the second view is that for a law for a statement to be testimonial it always has to be made to a governmental and that view is a view that was that bases its arguments for adoption of that rule on the comments made by professor graham and also relies on this is from other states so  is with regard to a yes you're on the record decision this is a little bit confusing because at one point the court concludes clearly they state they concluded that the agency if if it's intended to be the person who receives the same as a conduit so it's it's not a clear decision as to whether it needs to be made or governmental on their i believe there are problems with with the british decision and that's why i asked for argument because i think that decision goes too far  the i think it's important to know that the supreme court has left the possibility of making the statement to non governmental agencies open so as along our stance it's i don't think the cornice even go that far because the statement made to a non governmental person does not necessarily the intent is not necessarily that it will be used as evidence the prosecution case law indicates that if the person reasonably foresee that it will be used to investigate the person so if it's limited to just stack consideration on i think in statements were intended to trigger an investigation i'm concerned about the statements that asking the daughter analysis is the question of the intent was the comment made counsel without any intent to trigger an investigation or prosecution i think fearful she wanted to leave her marriage she wanted leave her marriage peacefully she told the friends of threads that had been made friends responded by offering to let her stay with them she asked if she could come and stay could she come bring the kids to stay would you watch my kid that was her intent in making these statements or intent in making these statements was not to possibly trigger an investigation in the future these are not testimonials pick out objects to on the basis of being testimonial statements after the lengthy hearing after  hearing other people's motion and limiting the judge prefaced his remarks by saying there's no constitutional challenge here i don't reach that issue but he agreed there was no constitutional challenge the judge never reached the issue of whether these were testimonial and the people submit that they are not but certainly in this case these statements were mom testimonial they were made for the purpose of helping her peacefully exit a marriage and in that situation she was afraid or they would not mean to trigger the investigation if that expansive definition  and they were certainly not made with the intent that they would then be used as evidence in the prosecution against the defendant in this case they were that's correct but that was not her intent was not to declare its intent if the court were to wrongdoing and that's not an issue in this case but they do make the comment in that case and it is ticked as i said that i am in the in the context of domestic violence and that  only testimonial statements are excluded by the confrontation statements to friends and neighbors about abuse and intimidation would be excluded if at all only i think your cycles so if we can look at victor for a way that the supreme court might treat this issue your question just a smidgen about the victim having foreseen that her murder and making these statements in connection with something along those lines some premonition that she would be murder on the facts in this case shows that she had she had resigned herself sensually to being killed she had stated to her sister testified that when she mentioning to other individuals that her husband had threatened to kill her own indicates or supports the conclusion that she intended her comments to point the finger at but i think you put it on both ways with the limited evidence and circumstantial evidence that was available because there was a also evidence that was contrary or that so the state's reliance on that statute home supports my argument that the other evidence was not strong enough or at least create a quasi balance case in this in the situation