certainly if there are questions we're going to prevail be happy to address those who care i want to begin this afternoon with identifying the acts that everyone including the alleged victim in this case g w agree that stop g w never said she did not want to have sex g w took her own pants down and by her own admission g w was worried that evening about getting a dui and did not want to be near her car i play out these facts because i believe they are critically important in this case because the state has to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt by its own charge that mr johnson committed an act of sexual tradition force or the threat of force and in this case i submit to the sport but the state did not demonstrate that you aren't a reasonable doubt and how do we know that what we have definitions to help us in this case thirst we have the definition of force the definition are you reading into this or demonstrates that there has to be some kind of force or threat of force demonstrat if there is no threat of force or course meaning that someone overcomes you by secure strain or size then you cannot sufficiently demonstrate what we have in this case is i would say consent and obviously if you're arguing that there is no force by extension you're saying that there was consensual sex between the defendant and the alleged victim in this case g defendant's home he invites her down to the basement where he argues that they have consensual sex in that case the state was able to demonstrate the at the testimony of the alleged victim that she struggled that she was thrown to the floor that the defendant muffled her screams and in this particular case with mr johnson we don't have any of those things consensual she gets down without any kind of objection she then takes her own pants and underwear off that's new that's on contradicted she agrees to that and then she says there's testimony that says she happens instantaneously there is a conversation leading up to going into that are untrue and that conversation includes the defendant but she agrees calling his grandfather the phone call is made there is some kind of conversation trying to help her and then he takes her in and she also i would clarify it's kind of confusing in the record but everyone just kind of ends up in the laundry room there's no real take squirted she's not drugged there she walks into the washroom of pretty well nobody touches her in any way she is told to get down here correct but then they proceed to have sex she never says no you know there's no resistance of any kind and there's no force of any crime so that i think it demonstrates a freely given agreement or at least at the very minimum that it was reasonable at that time for mr johnson to believe that they were having consensual sex which is another aspect of this case you know he doesn't see her behave in any way that would lead him to believe it's not such a i mean certainly if he says get down and she says i don't want to that would be something entirely different than what we have in this case especially given the circumstances that they are in fact helping her they have made a phone call and then they go into laundromats not instantaneous you know she's not being drugged to wonder and certainly and again she's the one that doesn't want to be near her car because she is afraid of getting in a while so that's what i think demonstrates consent in this case and i would also suggest to you know in the consent because we're looking at consent that a lack of persistence does matter this case and again i don't see anything in these in these facts that would indicate it was unreasonable for him to believe that it was consensual and that includes even having spot or the unidentified male in the room because he doesn't touch her at all i mean she says there's some benefits of a contact but she can't remember she doesn't really know where he is and again they were assisting her at the time about that as a matter of fact g w can testify that there's queen operated machines in there indicating that it is somewhat lit there's hardly lie on the outside and also one of the officers i think it's close  the back of the building i take it pretty far away from where the collision occurred that she tried to light pole or whatever a car a car and took one of the men tells her get down on the floor and you don't think the imprints from that trial judge could draw a bench trial was that there was a level of coercion there that if we were talking about whether a defendant felt that he was under arrest if these it's from a case off or from the facts of the case but we also have to look at the evidence you know is it on satisfactory to support charge and i think in this case certainly there may be instances i'm not trying to say in every case where maybe similar somewhat similar facts are demonstrated where perhaps it's two against one but in this particular case i'm saying we need more because of the simple fact that there is this conversation before they go into the water there seems to be no question about that they go and that defendant doesn't suggest that they want to wander into hyde i think it's more of a suggestion at that point oh he says that's why we went to the back of the building correct that's why they went to the back building and to actually go into the building he said just that that was more because they have been discussing having sex now again that's contradicted by the records that's not agreed upon fact but that's why he suggests that they went in there and i'm saying what happens from the point when they go into that line to room and tell me leave i think a reasonable person would think it's consensual again she doesn't say she's led into the lunch room she says she you know i just went with them she says someone told her to get down she did get down she also then when she's getting down her ashes getting down takes off her own hands so if your party is defendant who believes he's having so much sex and then she doesn't say mean things she doesn't say no she doesn't say stop there's no force nobody yes i mean it because there's a lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission now if there's no for threat or force or threat of force but again the complainants in action is important it's case because there each of these individuals has some credibility concern certainly but as far as mr johnson is concerned i would say that his responses on the stand were certainly reasonable and you know what he says that and i'll serve as not tonight that he started the interview by say i'm investigating right i'm investigating criminal sexual assault i don't think it's unreasonable in that instance to immediately especially in this case when you you think you've had consensual sex with someone obviously he says he doesn't initially remember  it's over a year later he doesn't ever get her name he doesn't get that on the stand and he says you know it just didn't occur to me maybe it is your leader again but when someone starts a conversation with i'm investigating criminal sexual salt i think it would be reasonable to want to distance yourself from that charge when you don't believe you're guilty of that charge and he even from the very first appearance he talks about there being someone else named gary's johnson so it's not just looking if you're going to try to deny the charge to the police that would be a reasonable thing would be saying you know we had sex but it was consensual not saying there's another there is johnson out there you've got the wrong guy and that's a bizarre response to the interchange we saw i would agree that some of those are but in the circumstances given that it's a year later i would also it seems to me that when this warrant is issued he had just got done serving time and that comes out in the record so again there's this idea when he's put in that position maybe it would be bizarre to someone on the outside for him sitting there a fruits of guilty which based on these facts i don't think so i mean i grant you that it's questionable when he says you know he doesn't admit to having sex with anyone in the perhaps it is reasonable to assume that you know he's trying to distance himself from what is being placed in front but what is being placed in private is we're investigating a criminal sexual assault and he wants to distance himself from that charge i don't think there's really a question of that i mean protests his innocence from start to finish so he wants to distance himself from that charge and i don't think that's unreasonable even if you're drawing reasonable inferences on behalf of the state and again that all comes back to also the facts of this case given the case law in this area i think this case comes down to almost two versus one enough and i don't think it's on a case of second ever be enough there has to be something more in this case either resistance on the part of the alleged victim you know some kind of force or threat of force on the part of the defendant i mean he doesn't say or do anything and again she also doesn't know i mean she doesn't know tells her to get down we don't know which one it is i don't think for the purposes it's necessarily critical that we know set it but again that's into a parked car at sometime in the early morning hours after she had been drinking the defendant and another man approached her the victim did not the state sabbats that defended its act then defended and the other man's acts that created a highly intimidating situation that when the victim was told to get down when the other man stood in front of the victim and where  victim testified that she was too scared and that she knows shushed prior to literally frozen just prior to the sexual  decision to go into the building or down the steps and into locker rooms or well i think there's an inference here that she at least wants to get away from her car she readily admits on the stand that she did not want to be near her car because she was afraid of just end up behind the building the other thing is you know one of these people know where they're at he doesn't live there and she doesn't live there so again i don't know that he's really i don't believe he's creating this intimidating situation so they just good luck from this certainly but he doesn't know the area any better than she does that's what he testifies to and i think you know neither one of them are residents there certainly as far as the state's position that she rose and she  assumed that she knew what was going on and that she doesn't that just by that initially that comes out when i believe on cross examination he says why did you go in the room and she says well i don't know i just you know i knew what was going on but that's not based on anything that the defendant said or did to her at that time that's just her assumption as far as the stand in her view your honor your last question in people be real or they talk about this idea that you have to consider all the evidence not just the evidence it's convenient the state's theory of the case so you have to you do have the ability to look at the entire record and again it reasonable people can act on reasonably that's why you can review his for reasonable doubt and that's why you can look at the whole case you know it's not just the evidence like i said that supports or doesn't support the state's theory it's all the evidence and if there are no questions what we're requesting is for th