considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution could any rational jury have convicted by the defendant of the charges in question i think that that needs to be always on our minds as we talk about the evidence because i think founded hold a gunshot wound in the leg it's very clear never waiver on this point and one thing he was also clear about is that he wasn't doing drugs that night he said he was drinking but that he wasn't doing drugs by having another witness testify that that yeah lang was taking drugs that can't possibly open the door for any and all evidence in the hope so of tarnishing another witness credibility there's just no case that supports such a an therefore i mean we could of course draw the line if you had changes that's the only that he probably didn't change his story i'm sorry you have to change a story then he probably didn't write an affidavit retracting everything he said earlier and at trial but more importantly than that this the procedural rules of the scope of the rules for a reason and one of the main purposes of discovery is to prevent surprise in to prevent one side from getting an unfair advantage the ridiculously don't just nature of the the production of this  this document i think is it was justified the judge's decision to exclude it there is enormous prejudice to the state at this point because number one they won't be totally unprepared to investigate  haven't been able to investigate this document that that would have probably involved interviewing lang again interviewing defendants wife again probably talking to someone who might know to rise this trying to figure out whether or not this was there were any foundation e as i argued this is the judge rejected this document discovery grounds and i don't think they're that they're really i don't think can be any argument that there was bad faith that there was not bad faith in the production of th document this was produced right after the jury was a panel and right before opening statements and the defendant's wife just happens to magically come up with this document that i don't think there's any question that that she was intending to submitted subjected to a gunshot residue test and nothing was discovered and the fact that nothing was discovered i think the reason that the party stipulated that is kind of to inform the jury that there probably should have been shot residue but what wasn't or wasn't in this case and that should stand on its own and i and the judge the reason part of the reason besides that that he excluded this expert is because there was that gap between the shooting at approximately ten pm and the task at eleven forty eight pm that of course is a long period of time with which somebody could wash their hands repeatedly or wipe them down or of course do anything to remove any gunshot residue from their hands so so even if  excluded him because of his qualifications i certainly think he could have because i don't see how this man is an expert in any way shape or form he's an attorney let me you know be focused solely on this czech republic article which didn't even say anything about gunshot residue on somebodies hands or holding all of all that all it was about was estimating or calculating how many you need particles are spread in the air that has nothing to do with whether or not stuff is going to be out of corals or on his hands or anything like that so i think good any science in this case that this expert this suppose an expert was attempting to present is just junk and i think it i think he would he would have been properly  that basis but much more importantly he was properly excluded because there's a lot of time between the shooting and the task in this case that the found it could have done any number of things to remove whatever type of residue might have been on his person so i