all right and i'll tell you that we have all read the bring use we're very familiar with the case and so you can keep that in mind as you're presenting your argument at the microphone in front of you is not one of amplification meaning mr winter and then the fourteen year old domestic battery involving his former girlfriend and he said i don't remember her i don't recall now it didn't happen that way then you're stuck because you know ok the victim to come in and so you're stuck with the stipulation i'm trying to envision how cross states in the building to come in with essentially clean records except the stipulation and that is an inaccurate picture of what happened here is there was going to be true whether it was two witness it had some down sock not by really not guilty i mean i'm probably the case changed significantly but isn't it you know you bring that up the the jury found your client not guilty on armed robbery on armed robbery tells me the jury believed your client that winters was the aggressor and the jury question now on what is the premise of the use of force in connection with personal property now in your possession after it's been taken leads me to believe at least that the jury found that your client exceeded the permissible use of force b pursuing winters after he had taken the phone and hitting him in the head with a brick so all day that being the case i'm again i'm trying to see how the complection of the case would have changed  had brought in all this lynch evidence yes it was the aggressor but it still doesn't go to the offense that the jury found your client guilty of them that is pursuing him and hitting him with a brick was that you know i it's a legal question the question of whether or not you're allowed to do that is a question of law which is the purview of the judge she could reclaim it with a brick to the head it would be up to the jury decide whether the bench the head it was the first she was using to retain the property or the first she was wrong in this case to make a decision as a touch on the last issue which was again which again goes to that issue of whether it be add because if anything testified we did believe today because we were not allowed to bring any information about the fact that the police received two consistent accounts and one what we were asking for you would have gone in with a limiting instruction for example simply noting that the statements were consistent that would not go anywhere beyond what the state is already allowed to do in many cases where they bring in investigative procedure including situations where the state has been allowed to  entitled to know about why they made that decision but even if back even if you don't believe that that situation is well in this case the jury question and the lack of continuance meant that in the end the jury both did not have the full facts of this as they have to assert itself defense from way back in january but and by the way they do come up with the domestic battery conviction and why is it because self defense is an issue the defendant should have to proceed by way of stipulation and can't even else the victim was convicted of domestic battery anything about the conviction so first the defense counsel is not forced to go along with a stipulation a defense counsel could have objected to defense counsel could have decided instead to ensure a certified sacks of his domestic battery conviction without the ability to prove that the question is that he asked so this for example counsel had guy named and asked the victim about specific instances with specific  procedure in which to get out the information that that the victim was the aggressor first there would have to be some foundation that the defendant would have to hold this was mentioned in the opening victim because of course self defense won't come up until the defendant's case and then we have to wait for or do we recall the victim and the defendant's case so this is out and this is  that this information this particular statements made to the officers should come in was to figure out what sort of information the police had at the disposal of the bat that this was self defense and the running the jury  jury to decide that's a raster to the witnesses to decide if the police officers believe the quote person and not it was not the cause you have the police officers themselves to state who they believed in who didn't believe in conducting their and what about the jury question on the defense of property of an issue of law we would argue that this question under the facts of the circumstances of this case it was a question of fact the specific question arises why there were several questions the jury or no it would be directing the jury one way or the other final convictions we wouldn't be able to use them for lynch material we were only able to use them to question basically trying to undermine the idea that perhaps the victim i was scared about his rights in another case and was therefore by so doing what i use so i understand that on the rhetoric it appears that there was a statement that we agree we had previously or he said that we didn't agree and there's no reason to believe from the record that we're doing anything other than agreeing with the phrasing which is what we were doing at that point which frankly already lost part to the fact that our client had been very clear that he wanted this to move quickly it was the first continues we had ever sought after only being on the case for three months for that reason we believe that it's clear from the record that the reasons for the denial of this continuance weren't on reasonable because they unfairly punished