was convicted i'm all for possession of methamphetamine because he had leisure we possess an amount of methamphetamine so minute it was under way about the state argued that bradley was guilty under a theory of either constructive or actual possession of n but it had to establish that whatever was contained in the residue still contained methamphetamine is that your argument the argument is that in order for the state to meet its  that once that they're done smoking all of that substance is gone but it's been completely consumed in smoke there's no evidence in this case that bradley didn't think that regarding this methamphetamine if in fact and i should add that if in fact the state  think so because in and correct me if i'm wrong but you're saying that the state has to prove that he knew or should have known that the residue continued to contain nothing and i mean i would doubt that's that's correct i would add to that i think you also have to sloshing around running it through her you know chemical analysis equipment and only then one of the tools that she was using give a positive indication from the in my mind the question this case is if a lab technician has they think that they have disposed that they have not been so successful and then this whatever they didn't dispose of success is found on their premises they wouldn't be guilty of h officer that the pipe was hit us and that there was residue in it and that that the defendant had smoked out of that pipe before but this court said was we will accepted as true we've got this other problem with that i guess my response to that would be even if we accept the officers testimony as true we have the problem that the second part of the argument the bradleys raise here which is this is nothing if it isn't a closely dalliance case where we have as our discussion this far in debating that this issue has shown we have the testimony the police officer saying bradley told me he smoked methamphetamine earlier in the day versus bradley's trial testimony that no  one ever told the officers about and the fact that no fingerprints or d n a were found on the pipe that it wasn't tested for those things no evidence that anyone saw gravelly smoke from that pipe and in fact there there's a fact in this case i think is it can be really easy to please continue with your deliberations now we're nearly that might not seem that a view of an issue but in this case it's a reasonable inference that had the jury out now believe the officers testimony and didn't have any question about the officer's testimony it would have been irrelevant whether whether bradley had been tested for drugs or whether there was a positive drug test result the jury was asking that it seems to me because the jury had some question regarding the nature of the officers testimony and whether it was actually truthful and so that jury question i think highlights the closely balanced nature of the evidence in this case but if we're going to consider the evidence at all got inside her and what was actually said during the state's closing argument the state in this did something it was not allowed to do it placed stumm on the scale of credibility something that the jury is supposed to be left to decide there are i don't think any dispute that the state may comment on the facts and the evidence in the inferences that come there for their front but if a reviewing court finds that the prosecutor's improper conduct conduct may have contributed to the defense conviction it must order a new trial and that's what we're arguing happened here and i would say that there are three different things stated during his closing argument all which are improper and all of which would require a new trial first of those is the state throughout its closing argument reminded the jury over and over and over again that its witnesses were sworn law enforcement officers of significant experience and at times would say who would not lie through their teeth to frame an innocent person but the state when even further than that it said and i quote unless we all want to and this is after the defense's closing argument the state says unless we all want to buy with the defense trying to sell and that is again the two sworn law enforcement officers we come in here not only commit a farce but a miscarriage of justice to convict an innocent man versus what he just told you i think the answer to the credibility issue the answer to the credibility issue becomes quite clear the state is not allowed to comment on the credibility of its witnesses it's not allowed to say i don't know what you just heard everything that the defense  it that is a if the state came back in and said why were these officers framed brad why would these officers lie to convict rather i would be making this argument but what happened in this case was again you have this repeated over and over again and reference to the fact there on force an officer significant experience i think the answer to the credibility issue is quite clear in a similar issue was reviewed in this people versus roger's case their programming a similar issue they said that the statement taken in context was used by the prosecutor to improperly interject his personal views improperly bolster the credibility of the testimony given by the police officers the state can't vouch for the the credibility of these they can ask the jury to find big again they could say why would these officers walk this quarter in a case kill one of the jury knows that that one the jury knows their experience so what exactly credibility issues quite clear i think the jury's going to think over police officers we should give them you know benefit of the doubt another point in cases that you cite to where the courts found that it was improper false wrong the credibility in the correct there are cases that say that i don't read that as a determining factor of whether or not it constitutes or not but to take it a step further the state a kid made another set of comments that are improper the state told the jury essentially you should believe are with this is because if they had wanted to lie they could have come in and told more grandiose better lies that would have gotten the defendant in more trouble now generally i don't read from portions of transcript i'd like to do that here just very briefly to highlight the statements i'm talking about during its closing argument the state said if they're lying through their teeth they really are and should have really done a better job fielding the lily should that for instance you know instead of just one piece of mail t photograph or you acknowledged it didn't contain the address of the place where he was that morning he could and should have said there were tons tons of stuff here i just couldn't i just didn't photograph it i saw it then it says later case there the good saints wouldn't you think if the defense or the police were part of this big front of they do a better job for christ's sake when they put a little more ethan into it when they at least say the defendant yeah we recovered the knife this is the knife this is the percy had on her shoulder the defendant confessed everything of course they would have if it was a frame a priest came in here and told you exactly what happened the truth that is what happened the appellate court found that those comments were highly improper in  those are very similar to what we have in the n c and i'm curious how a court in that case on what basis and then on to be proper i don't recall if the court said what specific problem they had with the statements other than that they were highly improper the court went on to reverse on a separate ground so i think the jury i don't recall if that's what it was or not i'm sorry for not remembering the comments on believed by witnesses had they wanted to why they could have told other lies that's improper counsel but the state here said that in order to ensure credibility witnesses maybe it doesn't because those instructions infer that the jury is considering those factors the bias in the motive and in all those things based on the proper argument that's been presented to them and the facts and evidence that have been admitted in the case where you have the state's attorney coming in and bolstering the testimony of his witnesses and adds prejudice to to to the case the final thing before my time expires the state also impugn bradley's character in this case it wasn't intent with bolstering its own didn't like the courage to get up and say they're lying to you again because the defense was that the police were lying then that was something be that there was a lie and so there was a proper comment on that test and as to whether or not the evidence is close of course that only goes to issue to these issues of whether or not right i think that i could conditionally do with that but let me just ask a very clearly here what is the evidence that supports the conviction of the possession of methamphetamine to his statements and  is the the evidence that the cases do address comegys provides those cases here it is important in those cases and we do have that evidence here in even stronger evidence in this case that testimony the physical evidence but what evidence establishes proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the financial position of methamphetamine down in the drawer next to him he stated in the states said well you've got the pipe you've got the defendant's statements to the police you guy his admissions you have so so those are the things the state pointed out what all of those things are dependent on whether or not the officers testimony here was believable the pipe is only connected to the defendant here if you believe the officers testimony but the defendant sad i possess that fiber here in the day wasn't him  burden to prove actual or constructive possession it's their burden to prove that he knowingly possessed the methamphetamine that was found in the pipe all of this is dependent on the juries believing the officer statement or the  the home on his own he was there with another gentleman and they entered the home before the homeowner arrived at some point the homeowner then joined them and she was arrested suitably stomped on the door so somebody else's home there were other people present there barring some other evidence no if there's nothing else connecting to the pike you know if there were one hundred people in that house if there was a pipe found at the convention center here down the street and there were a hundred people within a fifty foot radius of that pipe are all of them guilty of constructive possession or in some other fact connecting them to that pipe the answer is no it because so much of this case is tied to the jury believing the officers testimony that case it doesn't seem like it's similar to this case in terms of the facts because in that case you didn't have any acknowledgment and i understand you dispute that and it indicates that that's where the credibility of the witnesses comes in but in this case you have ten officer testimony that the defendant if needed having smoked earlier that morning using that  that he was suggesting to disbelieve that they were interested in such a small amount of in this wisconsin case it was just a pipe alone and the residue in the pipe that was the basis for the state's charge  correct me if i'm wrong my recollection is the defendant admitted that he had used that type of past two weeks prior correct ever so we do have our own mission by the defendant in that case but the one of the important facts  to this these extreme measures to test an amount of a substance that is so small it's one way of all are we going to say that bradley kind heart no we possess methamphetamine