defendant did not figure that out until post trial motions were day forty one thirty nine asserted that the trial court should not have been committed that  the prosecution's case because according to the prosecution's primary witness in this passion martin gave had told her the night before that wasn't there consent well the statute says and the trial court held that that was it mid pursuant to quality assurance or quality control when the trial court prior to the start of the admission of evidence and i can give assurance does not permit seizures to give it might say to the federal government the state government and in this case we don't even know ha oh the to wait a application that he in fact told the judge about the one o eight b application what he said was when i believe it's quoted in my brief both my opening and required proof that i pretrial proceedings sided with the very wise police officer that said ok you probably did or words to that effect now again or you know i'm not changing the record prosecute or eden prior to the final criminal charges that's clear in this case the question becomes did the police officers and the state that is the prosecutor who had to formally know that marty was represented by counsel way back in october of twenty year olds seven and january of twenty eight can they use the police to get around the fact that she was represented by counsel and now we want to take well was this raised malone  zeal of the prosecutor to get this done to solve this case the five rules of professional conduct in the answer is yes should suppress state's attorney so there's a consistency from general order twenty away through the entire prosecution of this case who is in charge and now so excuse me just used by the court best absolutely wrong we had the right as we showed in our reporting brief to present relative relevant evidence in a first degree e mail addresses for seventeen women she then sent letters or emails form both to these women a year are not half in advance of anything happening pertinent to this case that you show defendant did what she did you know how the defendant did what she did and we have the record below of the defense's challenges to the state's evidence those challenges do not include the majority of the argument that the appeal that would more properly directed to the trial court defendant for whatever reason seems to believe that this rule does not apply to him and i would assert that he that those arguments are outside the boundaries of participating in the creation of the record and then come and complain that the record does not show something he had ample opportunity to present evidence to the trial for what the state knew way knew would how this evidence was obtained whether or not just seems review the one we ate tapes quite simply put those arguments are beyond forfeited so i would assert to this court i would hope that this court would apply with some strictness the supreme court rules in this case to the extent that we're talking as i said about the data in her conversations there is ample evidence of consent even the defense is not disputing that some next of the defendant's argument that the day of the murder conversations are defendant and defense assertions about that in the record consist of the conversation where the prosecutor during the the director of the passion talks about i hadn't spoken with her earlier that day to go over the exhibits in the of the video which this court does not have their money from the fence counsel's comments are truck houses comments to the core and those comments to the court interestingly enough if you go back to the record show different portions we are the  the defense and the trap for judge all through their level best to minimize the exposure of unnecessarily gruesome information to the jury so to be sent to the senate is making that argument in perks this court call the incredulous that counsel of two thousand and nine the record recently bereft of any evidence that would show that she was an accomplice and the challengeable person for the murder of ronnie white her daughter so for the defense to make that argument once the i can't remember if it was for work or fitness for a job interview and an alibi yet when she she had she did have a solid alibi for the time and the police did investigate her heavily the if there was some portion of i identified the victims medical or bracelet as belonging to the victim of the she would have been a witness who had seen the writing while you were in the in the bathroom crying about gail what's important to simply put out there was no there was nothing there was nothing further than that and so on clear his passion was where actually both sides were aware when the passion to take the defend more of the alter ego comprise the alter eagle on the prosecutor in this case not christie patch that's number one number two my opponent certainly respect the zeal of his argument he misplaced such is the difference because you know when a supreme court has told us