this evidence in any way because counsel's opening statement did not get into the content of the notes it off the only thing that defense counsel said about two minutes and it is on page two of womanhood that's correct i think the parties initially were somewhat concerned confused about whether there were text messages or notes but if you look at the exhibit you can see that there is no cell phone number at the top that would show that  to keep her daughter but the fact that it's a diary versus cellphone notes doesn't get into the contents of her statement against mr hernandez in any way i don't think that opens the door and to the extent that this court believes it did open the door not object to hear you say and you have the opportunity to cross examine i mean what what is the difficult to where extending that any trial strategy that may or counsel doesn't object is not a reasonable trial strategy because counsel had already is whether she's able to alter the time on the notes whether there's any way that she can go into the cell phone and make it look like they were entered into a different time they go to get into the content of the notes at all and so  it's just talking about small inconsistency it's just talking about the credibility generally he's not saying that the contents of the twenty ten note show that she is now lying that this is a recent fabrication that she made it all up none of that and the fact remains that even if it's peaching we're still talking about a kind of consistent statement here and kelso needed to get some background as well because of the prejudicial nature prior consistent i think the am distinction between a diary in the known supreme that's a pretty fine point to to try to make your case on particularly when you're up against you know if i let this come in then her then we have to look at the overall representation also we are the fact of the matter is there were motions filed it was cross examination there were other things that were done by defense counsel here th pressure it's because an isolated area can still be ineffective assistance and still is great that counsel cross examine the witnesses and call the complainant younger brother and argue gets jail time and all of that defense counsel filed a motion woman and that's great if but if you're not going to make sure that the state doesn't buy it if you are going to jump up to make sure that the judge's ruling stands that doesn't accomplish very much at the end of the day and the  hinged on her credibility in this evidence went directly to that credit will again as we know trials are very fluid things change things that you prepare for don't necessarily happen if you don't anticipate do happen so  distinctive difference between text messages versus notes in a diary and yet believe that no one would be similar to the person who supposedly her incriminating admissions that were off for some reason incontinent but in the process of reporting it to police and i've heard this if the circus when in fact she heard it in a hospital and s counsel says i'm going to establish that this alleged confession or whatever you want to call it didn't take place in a circus which took place in a hospital council is really quickly at that point over whether notes could have some relevance to the case such that the jury would have been admonished would have been admonished as to either total substantive or for purposes of confessed given that the younger brother is in the room for the twenty times incident and does not corroborate the sister's testimony whatsoever all of those factors in this case hinges on credibility and the prior consistent statement proof beyond a reasonable doubt i would know that there were some slight inconsistency in this but i considered the demeanor of the witnesses and i considered the passage of time between the events in question and the date of the trial see the two younger brothers testify and the but the defendant was obviously the primary witness but when witnesses fishing if she's compelling  it's most objectionable feature and i mean rationale underlying its exclusion is the opposing parties inability to test the real value at the testimony by exposing the source of the searching to cross examination that did not testifies first different people obviously that is going to be defense exhibit number one which is the child ethics the interview which she introduces and the mother is in fact this cell phone thing and then the specific her diary we find out later she has no diary she put it in the notes in her cell phone so i believe it was justice burke who mentioned that you know what an obvious ways cast the victim did you write anything in your notes on your cell phone after she touched you on the breast that are two thirty seven she says she has she noticed that night the essay says people those notes is people's exhibit one that's two thirty five to forty and then says that she wrote in notes because i always write my notes in the diary questions of that was your diary he answered yes that's it the no substantive evidence i'm sorry i mentioned that i saw any generally the change in which is she still everybody everything and she always tells everything differently and i think that gets us his in her opening statement so this state's intent on him probably which we can assume from the contents is to have a direct examination of the victim regarding the victim then will have to be impeached their argument is clear she may be different statements to different people so they're going to try and bring in those different statements one of which is on the cell phone diar trial strategy failed is because the facts don't fit the area where the defense counsel is making that statement he has not yet heard the victim's direct testimony regarding the incident and that's distinct from ours where it's entirely consistent with her testimony and so williams doesn't really come up factually but also the cross here as i mentioned in my main argument doesn't get into the contents of the notes and al