we presented two arguments in this case the first argument is at the market was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the state's case relied solely on testimony of one eye witness whose identification with unreliable for a number of different reasons tiffany who was the only one to identify the market was a perpetrator in this case and in case after case we've seen an eyewitness testimony and it reliable as it seems to be in the perry case in two thousand and twelve united states supreme court case played out first of all we had this very strange situation where the police took half an eighty three year for apparently random places looking for the perpetrator there's no us but nation record as to why they were looking in these different places they didn't find the perpetrator at these different places and then as you point out apparently took anyone out on a search yourself or the perpetrator gave what we argue was a relatively baby description of somebody with a gap in his mouth and wearing black clothing apparently and so based on what somebody else said about where somebody might have been and somebody sticking his hand out the window she then she goes to the conclusion that the person in the residence is a person who was also in the apartment when the police go ahead and go into the certainty is the most flawed of these five major street actors that that that it that he and so the first thing to say is that yes tiffany testified and she was certain but that doesn't get us very far we know because it's been scientifically did this certain thing i'm certain that i saw this certain they happened yet doesn't necessarily mean that the way it is this correct and we see this unfortunately time and time and time again in music on a racial cases where witnesses say that there are certain i'm certain destroyed a couple of these off the top of my head this business of her believing that this incident took between five and ten minutes that is an absolutely classic case of a witness under a lot of stress greatly overexaggerated in the difference there's there's just no question because what what the expert would have been able to do is to provide a scientific foundation for the cross examination of counsel that crosses him to tiffany fairly well you got to need to see that she and unfortunately during the cross examination tiffany for the defense attorney ray tiffany said that she was certain about this certain about right and occasion and what the admission of an expert what it done at that point was to provide some scientific foundation for what counsel already done which was one of mine tiffany's identification at least a little bit and it would have provided scientific foundation for that we know from the research the couple of things certainly well we've got here is a situation in which we have one person not multiple witnesses just one person who identified the market was a perpetrator and that person is under a tremendous amount stress it appears short look at this perpetrator with the state have even called catcha howard testify if she didn't have anything to contribute about who was a community this yes this whole thing hinges on tiffany's testimony and even in the light most favorable to the state given the flaws  that under this particular set of circumstances where you have just one witness identifying the perpetrator they have with this is identification a shaky for a lot of different reasons in this situation that it would have made a difference in the ultimate outcome of the trial about trial strategy or honors what we're talking about is the man's counsel at trial balancing whether a certain piece of evidence is going to harm or help his client whether it's going to help this guy potentially help his client or potentially hurt his client and counsel has expert testimony in any different kind of a trial whether it's a civil trial or a criminal trial it's because of your forms of jurors about things that they might not otherwise understand and here we have a situation where there's a shady identification there's flaws but they had shake yet  with all due respect the office work yes quite simply did not have the benefit of what we know now about the bail ability of a five minute second occasion testimony and i think that's why the supreme court ruled the way it did in egypt the