summary spreadsheets the nd the proof of value of over one hundred thousand dollars improper sentencing factor and the final issue involved the five dollars per day credit is fine th case this will doesn't apply for she reasons st the trial judge in this case the civically prohibited detector newman from testifying as to his opinion on whether or not the sterns were victims of fraud said that that was the detective's work that's not the work of bank of america which is essentially the same objection that were raised here  the work of a bank of america so he did not use the word unauthorized but that is the essence of of the jackson that we're we're making here i feel that he hearing defense counsel regarding the american express credit card specific we pointed out that written on top of that exhibit was the term fraud and fraud is number sixty four there was really little to no explanation for how detective newman determined which charges were fraudulent charges and which charges way to determine how the judge or she how the detective reached that conclusion the receipt from that particular transaction was not introduced into evidence i mean the jury had nothing to go on a valuation of the evidence and they're no longer going to look at serious questions of in this case especially regarding value and instead just accept except the total from the checks in the credit cards was fifty seven thousand four hundred and ninety five dollars twenty three cents so from the a t m withdrawals to be the state is forty two thousand five hundred and four dollars and seventy seven cents and quite simply there was just no evidence at trial show that this high amount of eighteen withdraws were actually on offer from the state i'll agree with you that it's not close enough and steve every single transaction that was not a video for every transaction but isn't all of that what the jury is supposed to do and determine the credibility of the totality of the evidence well no specifics given to where this money goes after it's withdrawn from an a t m point is my point is that isn't that circumstantial evidence that prior to her employment it's a total of three hundred dollars some dollars after her theory of this entire case which i'm once again by beyond ridiculous is that is the sterns were actually paying for divide things for their house which completely is by the financial records and that the sterns were gifting her all of these various funds which once again i completely is completely belied by the records from a year out which i think very  two thousand dollars again it is a matter in large part of the credibility of the witnesses and that in this case was the jury was the finder or tr is evidence under both federal rules of evidence i channel six in illinois care must be taken to admit argumentative inconclusive matter in their preparation last ditch or even lead as for the cover  low in this case it all goes to part of my forfeiture arguments which your honour's were also pointing out that in particular with the summaries or with the headings you advance and they were given out you know months a long time before the trial so everyone had them could assess that everyone knew that detec newman was in fact the policemen investigating i don't think it would be shocking to the jury that in the process of assessing all of these and making his where he's going through all of the credit left alone while she goes to the store because of what relevance is that in this case it does have some relevance because part of the argument is thousand dollars he said stated not that i recall and he did not remember giving her permission to withdraw seventy three thousand dollars and he  in judge the jury your honour's can view the deposition and then make your own assessment there is also expert testimony from the doctor regarding her permission to charge thirty three thousand dollars on a credit card didn't recall giving her permission to drop seventy three thousand dollars at me so i don't buy those to objecting to that it's all these little incremental ones the state chose to label with the ultimate conclusion for the jury that's the heart of the issue here well i think that's in what paraded did you know eight months prior to their working and the seventy three thousand and i think it is the two years you're out of synch that but that's an overwhelming difference phone and again the throughout the trial the prosecutor is encouraging the jury to look at the underlying documents they go through different transactions and they even will have this exhibit  opportunity to look at all of the underlying tension and then to compare that and that's how my wife had similar opportunity to bring in the alleged years so the entire purpose of allowing the summaries is someone to be needed if the state has to go through item by item and you know show each allegations against the witness and was thus better able to weigh the importance of the suppression so the reasoning in when you speak is specifically premised on the fact that this is a bench trial and they recognize that if we're dealing that that was simply not relevant the police officer in it is that that was an assumption whether or not they were left alone the trial court said it was not completely all that relevant and and whether or not the stories were present just doesn't shed that much light on whether or not the phrase actually drop arrives at trial the state argued that even when one of the stories was present some of these three factions or more on offer and he testified and in the state willing to risk their their the sterns physical health so that she can go through a shock and it's just it's the type of thing that sticks out to a juror and it should not have been ignore the exact opposite definitive statement on the same issue by the same witness and that's regarding the teen's testimony that's that's what the state's asking you to do here to ignore his testimony that he gave permission to use the a t m card that this was how he paid for his expenses this was a normal part of the caregivers job and ultimately this really wasn't even a credibility contest this is and he said she said this is especially and i'm now referring to specifically to to the value element this is just that absence of evidence of the specifics of what the money withdrawn from the a t m was used is there's no allegation facts the victims were physically neglected or that they were lit bingham's wall or anything of that nature so some money was going to  s being used to take care of the victims we don't know how much and it's important to remember this is the state's burden of proof proof beyond a reasonable doubt it's not defense his job to cross examine facts of those expenses which is which we're going to sit here for the stearns which we're going to need is i mean perhaps if there could be some suspicion that the defendant is taking some of it we