four of them left at about ten pm they came back to the bar about ten forty five the bartender noticed they seemed a lot happier and she did not serve them any more alcohol yet that time left the bar shortly after midnight the plaintiff and curiously only were involved in the single vehicle motorcycle accident both of both nicole parker and your when he died as a result of that the autopsy report here lies and so the issue here then before the court is whether these two comments were plainly here or in order to be played there are these cards must have denied the plaintiff the right of a fair trial and they must have substantially impair the judicial process of the first comment regarding personal responsibility what is in fact the reference was actually excuse me was actually a response to personal responsibility and in fact made a tactical decision because in his rebuttal argument he referred to the defendant's arguments and explained it that he not follow the law as to the slight other was evidence that you're really only indeed did of methadone in the system there is also evidence that rock singer billy only had gone and been convicted with a felony possession charge for methadone i believe it's common knowledge and is a highly addictive drug which is used actually to outreach here and which is another highly drawn i believe it's a reasonable inference to say that these people were addicted because of their connection with highly addictive drugs that being said at what does roxanne's use of drugs have to do in any way shape or form with elements that need to be shown in order to prevail or to happened well the reason that i was growing up with roxanne was because she was a witness and we were raising questions about her credibility and that's why we brought up her drug conviction was to raise questions about her credibility fire as opposed to talking about it or is that if you know someone in the present in that regard to think that i that prejudice is to a witness it's not in any prejudicial effect directly against the plaintiff if we aligned misaligned the the witness in this case roxanne i don't see how that could ever be anything other than harmless error ourselves without any objection quite frankly i don't see how either of the two reasons given by the trial court in this case could be considered plain and i'm not even sure that they would  to this particular matter i was the trial counsel in this case as well addressing some of the arguments made by the defendant first and foremost i think it's important to remind the court although i know you need not a reminder that the standard of review in this sort of matter is an abuse of discretion and that in order to overturn the ruling of the trial court in this case judge joe carroll you would have to find that there was no that no reasonable person would agree with visitation that he had taken in this particular matter and i don't believe that that there is an abuse of discretion in this particular matter jeff skiles presided over the trial he presided over all aspects of the trial including arguments that were made in chambers on the record and what have you and he had the opportunity to sit in view of the closing arguments and so viewing he was in the best position i would respectfully suggest to waive the a fact of  to make a determination as to whether or not comments are inflammatory or whether or not the price the level of player in this particular matter the defendants indicate that while the abuse of discretion standard is precedent there was no evidence that he was a convicted found of course we have a combination from the autopsy reports of now down and alcohol in his blood system and that was one of the points i was going to get to later is that wh lines and i think that there's you know certain risk your characterization as relates to the word math it's not necessary you know one is an extremely addictive drug which can cause all sorts of problems the other is is a drug that's be used for purposes and that part of the notwithstanding the personal responsibility arguments of those inflammatory statements were again part and parcel of the reasons why he decided to grant a new trial and well let me assume this too when he denying prior to going to closing arguments i don't think that her actions were not a part of the case any longer at that point in time that we're looking at whether or not they saw the o o l call played a role in the accident and so on so the state testified in her deposition that her husband was a drug addict so it's not that with the sneaking facts out these are facts and although they not on the trial actually are factually correct there's also some and finally regards personal responsibility i think this is when we'll argue but this was an issue which was raised and the turnpike really is a very skilled attorney he brought up personal responsibility