but the main things that showed bias was a complaint by mr half marsters to the police chief that the officer was harassing them and in this subsequent threat by officer harding that he was going heard my client getting arrested these years in the background information does alter cations and as i said this information would go to motive see us state that the victim had told him that she intended to commit suicide so that can come in to prove that she didn't commit suicide so well which would it apply here this  yes to the jury the case was clear that making promises during opening arguments that you have proof of your client's innocence by way of let's say another suspect in the not presenting that s so prejudicial to do that well while the jury might think that evidence is something documentary evidence usually in a trial the judge will explain that evidence can be all different types of evidence that testimony is eviden argument is not evidence i mean it's only a roadmap anybody who's given an opening statement is then usually you'll incorporate in that statement this is just a roadmap i mean this is not i promise  this gives you an idea of what the case is about yet despite that instruction course of health that making these types making promises of innocence making promises that my client is going to take the stand i think is one case m that were heard they heard that the defendant had called wunderlich police chief three or four times the week prior to the incident in three four times the day of the incident are we did prior three or four times a week to the incident and three four times a day of the end of the day done in this case and this is a little complex in a situation with regards to the facts in this case now with the prosecutor wish to group to start the smuggler hearing after he rested the people rested he began the conversation unfortunately or fully accepted at origins and are fully stated ok i'll wait for it to happen but then stated if the defendant chooses to take the stand and the law allowed the evidence of that conviction as it would be probably before the court there isn't much of case law there saying there cannot be prior felony conviction even if it was considered or if it was considered by the jury in this case it was just one consideration with everything else in that they heard there was enough evidence and they made the determination that there was enough evidence and the police officers credibility was much more or much more credible and thus they made the determination that the defendant was guilty of d state of mind exceptions that don't involve in reports it's just a with his hearing someone say something for instance the defendant saying the victim told him that she wanted to commit suicide was i was going to go to the ice cream parlor or something like that and the evidence was that she never went so it is here he was arrested so it is reasonable probability there is no reason to doubt this should be before the jury a lot of the state with the courts really allowing him alternation between police officers and defendants they allow a lot of biased evidence and even to the point where officer is suspended and earlier