taking one in for possible return and then taking it out again so the critical evidence in the case absolutely critical was the surveillance tapes now the order to stand a factual context which at least in my view happens we make the case the case and the issue is this some time afterwards sam's club changed the code exists and it was agreed by all parties that because the change the voting system selected and there's no proper authentication for the videotapes because they've been edited by one person official severely and we don't know what's on the rest and that was the argument they make and the trial state's argument with respect to waiver is that since defense counsel at trial did you wait to handle testimony which was basically that  which we don't dispute that that was his vision foundation the mission of the d v d s ah after trial defense counsel new defense they made the same thing clear in motion a new trial this deviation was obviously just a device to you know not have been called testifying to you to move on but in contrast to the cases which the state this truly and accurately represents the conversation i have defending or whatever that's the normal way to do it now a problem arises with surveillance tapes the car is knowing she's sitting there being a witness when you very weird situation and then a sort of complicated claim by their fans it was a little camera that went off when there is movement in a room and the appellate court determined that there was not a good foundation because they were possible hampering contamination or distortion or a change it is conceded that out of the one and a half hours only or a half minutes are preserved period so h anything else that these tapes should have been in minute now it's true that when you have a lot of material sometimes the sides can agree we're only going to use the r portions the jury doesn't have to see all that we can agree on and it's that's final and a court can say the whole thing is not going to be played we're not going to list the hours and hours of surveillance that nobody there are going to save the jury's time and only play the relevant that was their test but again i mean they're not doing that based upon their own remembrance of seeing these things i mean one of them wasn't even their loss in fact i think both of them weren't there all they're saying is we looked at this  we thought we we made a judgment as to what was important and the state leases judgment conforms with our judgment as to what is important or relevant but they're not actual witnesses saying i'm goes straight my testimony accurate record everything the records yes well tells you that this is used right now i would not agree that the therapy or case was basically raised in a motion to reconsider the first ruling because it came should not have been admitted is an extreme example and will not apply in many cases i imagine but in this particular case where you take only four and a half minutes out of an era now where the selection is done by state police official with no input from the defense or for that merit prosecution then the integrity of the real evidence has been destroyed there's a reason for a  that is she never what he was asked to do i believe he was asked to download any relevant material from the v h s system through the d v d and there's testimony that all of the information on the d know fifteen didn't they do discuss six different factors counsel has argued that technically factors number six lie here number four is the showing the manner in which the recording was preserved in other words the chain data and when you download from one to five years to another what you in effect are doing is producing a second it's no first but more importantly they said that editing may be necessary to make the d v d s miscible regarding for example irrelevant material so to edit this these tapes and put what you believe to be relevant on d v d was are able to watch the videos are so that was the stand i mean he knew he had a problem that was these then used to doing to try and solve it the record is that was never solved and the third counsel to do the motion for a new i mean that's common sense but we don't know if his view of relevance is the legal view relevance or the view relevance that a defense counsel would affect and that's the problem it's like the decision as to what is being emitted is being diverted is