admissible to show propensity and and that is not because other crimes evidence is now a problem it is but it's the opposite it tends to over persuade so but for council's decision to join the charge made by my client to kill the complaint and to have a shootout with police and kill the police her and himself the court found that those statements were no court was a lot of the evidence this evidence for was to bolster her credibility before the question of why there are now that you know there was going to be question as to why she reported ever rolls i mean this all happened in the context of ruling e charges should be joined because again there's no evidentiary link between the fact that the gun was found in the home and the domestic be everywhere that he was on trial for where there was first issue you would argue they're just constructive possession isn't enough for proximity because the gun was in his room the domestic battery on the april domestic battery took place in a different part of the house so even though it's the same secure basic prior acts of domestic violence as just being too prejudicial so she didn't want that evidence in at all for any purpose for any purpose and she also recognized prejudice stemming from the admission of mr johnson's prior felony conviction for the lawful use of weapons charge and she kept the charges separate and bit her remit to joining those issues even before the court ruled on whether that evidence was admissible and that was inconsistent with her purported strategy to try to keep the evidence out  think i do know that the problem is that they try to fashion what would be a limiting instruction but what is a limiting instruction when the evidence that's come in his propensity and how do you limit propensity evidence how do you tell the jury only consider the prior domestic violence for propensity as to the domestic battery in this case only but don't consider it as propensity   this is how we're going to get it well if it's too complicated for the judge and if it's too complicated for the parties how how is the jury supposed to sort through all of this let me ask you very good question is your goods your position th stand and said this incident happened but gives a damn very different explanation he put his arms around her he did sort of color in front of him because he claims that's the way he needed to see question is not the end any instance would be proper the question is in balancing the chance of getting the defendant contributing and not factor but for reasonable probability it's in the mix obviously what you're looking at no question is in the mix the question though is not could it be a factor and again we disagree with the  in possession illegally of a weapon also is alleged to be a violent volatile personality you don't think that president system it would be a good defense if the jury wouldn't have found that out as the people are correctly actually found in and again i can't say completely blame the trial judge brinn they're trying to inject you did a really good job a very careful thorough job of going over the prior statements line by lin point i would disagree with the characterization that there was a ton of other crimes evidence there was a relatively small amount but the more important question is how could it all be there on the  so i guess the question is could any conceivable attorney have felt that it was appropriate or not inappropriate to give this instruction here we have a specific reason s is always going to be the response and the people who believe in this case back even though the instruction was not crafted properly it wasn't but for them and error that he was one which has a special evidentiary rule allowing propensity evidence and the other which prohibits perhaps the propensity evidence once those two are joining together what was the instruction that really could have been given in this case what effective instruction could have limited the jury's consideration properly of this evidence i mean this is an ineffective assistance of counsel that she didn't ask for an instruction at the time that the evidence came in the confusion as she sat and the complication as the judge said said stab from the back of her ear are enjoying the charges they have how it's invited here and in this case where the instruction is to practice on its face it wouldn't have come in off the use of weapons case in terms of whether the statement that he threatened to shoot out would have come and the problem with now in hindsight saying that they would have come in to show his knowledge of the gun is that what the hearing at the hearing and i'm assessing whether or not that statement should have cake come in the waiting process was as to whether it should have come in the domestic battery and i cou could argue that evidence of that the by the defendant was going to shoot and kill police officers was so inflamed with tori and so prejudicial it should have been admitted but the problem is we didn't have waiting process here so i don't think you themselves did not necessarily to the they were targets of future harm they didn't necessarily go to the domestic violence incidents they didn't go to pennsic that's what the court found and