may please the court this case is about a single piece of evidence partial palm print every five issues i'd like to focus on the first three all which involve the park print first that print alone was not enough for a conviction  and this reasonable doubt issues complicated by the second and third issues in the braves that is the insufficiency of the evidence here it seems all more obvious once considered that mr size he was not the opportunity to have the jury fairly evaluate the reliability of daniel's and as a result we can't really have confidence in the jury's verdict here if there are more question if there are questions on issue one and then move on to the second issue that is the trial court violated mr chavez is right confrontation by preventing his attorney from crossing daniel's asking him hypothetical questions challenging the basis of the conclusion that the prints matched and also wisely prevented him from asking the examiner about the area associated with his mouth it was clear air for the corpse the stain his objections the state's jackson's counsel has the right to ask questions challenging experts on the basis their conclusions and the bases in a print case are these things  minute violation status to show that it was harmless gundry's that it cannot do that here what was the factual basis for the hypothetical questions that he was asking about the dividing ridges were as the basis for them in the end and the record well your honor i don't think this case is like herman which is the case that the state cites for the question that you're getting at where in that case the question involved is a drug case and defense there's asked about well what if while it was interesting these drugs with that throw off your opinion and that is a question about the facts but here we're not really talking about facts we're talking about the method in the ribadu so i think it's unfair to really points and again these these lines across went directly to the crucial witness on the crucial point can you match these prints reliably the state's case here was just about this partial print and we know that the jury thought it was a close answer it says basically continue deliberating the jury convicts mr shies away and this is also not how most enters go because shutting down these lines cross also forclose argument as right shows in that there the court committed premiers where by allowing to us to testify over objection that he sent the prince to another qualified examiner that testimony was at once not probative and prejudicial was not probative because the jury was  suppose it is for real counter argument but that doesn't change the fact that it was prejudicial and it doesn't change the fact that the jury was focused on it when the jury asks no it wants to hear about it so that examiner and you know as a practical matter your defense counsel you know something damaging came in all and we know the jury was focused on it that's the snow right after asking what if we can't be unanimous here they ask well what about a set of examiner that shows prejudice here what was the basis of the objection their counsel made to this evidence because again the danger is one degree separation from hearsay because it suggested enough to suggestion on the table that this other examiner unknown examiner corroborated the findings but there was no statement per se no but that's what you're worried about is the issue lingering out there sitting out there in the courtroom that the jury could last chance to say you know we're some other person one of the that's all right to the point the jury was concerned about it and that's what us prejudicial are no more questions on this third issue i'd like to conclude by saying i asked this court to reverse size his conviction outright because the only evidence against him was his partial print that was insufficient at a minimum asked of this court grandchild's a new trial under issues two and three because pete those issues show especially together with issue one that we can have confidence in the jury's verdict here  property walked into the backyard through a gated latch fence stepped onto an air conditioning unit raised the window raised the screen first and then the window and removed the television from inside the house the ho despite defended statement that he didn't go into that neighborhood the evidence at trial proved otherwise as evidence by defendant palm print on the outside of that window those i think might be properly characterized as to of the house asked recognize the house he didn't he asked for the address doesn't know the address he then asked officers where that house was located in the city and when he was told that it was the beverly neighborhood defendant said the opinion that it was a fresh print was advanced by the homeowner's testimony at trial when the windows location was also in a private area it was surely available to the public but in order to gain access to it one would have to enter the back yard of the home which is on the current isac and gated and that was a private enough location to satisfy the temporal proximity requirement for fingerprints with regard methodology is used the error rate is zero the next time that counsel tried to elicit that team information there was an objection which was to stay because that information had already come out with regard to the hypotheticals there were is part of a dividing rage or it or a razor bridge he asked us those questions and got the expert to admit that yes that is hard and it's especially hard with latent prints he got the expert to discuss that  not prevent him from attacking the expert witness on his complaint yes he was surely confronted and with regard to the expert testimony on t v the verification st were heard outside the presence of the jury and the judge further assure that the jury would not misuse this evidence when he responds the question the jury question was they wanted the name and qualifications of the other generally generally inquisitive jury when you look at all the questions they wanted a whole slew of information that they were not entitled to they wanted to know whether or not the defendant even outright statement that did not come out  people to call this other acts but the one aspect testified of the match was surely enough there was and the only way for this court to review defendants argument that this jury question means that the jury considered this other acts are other examiners findings and that if we have only on their opinion the only way to do that would be for the court to engage  acutely interested in print evidence and other examiner in particular it's just speculation he said the jury wasn't interested states says but that case shows that and common sense shows that asked this question six minutes later there's second just one final point yes there was some cross examination allowed but the cross examination that really mattered that really one of the bases of the conclusion here were the ones  of what's the basis for your conclusion here are you able to identify these prints and compare them accurately what's the method behind this those were the questions that were denied and most meaningful ones and show there was confrontation violation here