against him based on what people were saying forensics and their own lives that he was guilty to prove that he was lying in the deny part when he denied participating in the shooting his actual statements that came out of the however whatever the legal classification of the us your statements the jury again had no guidance on how to hear these things these were men who testified at trial and here they are a tape saying we're not guilty we have evidence that you're guilty you should tell us that you're prejudicial with respect to my client my client was on trial thomas was not in the strategic decision shouldn't the meet with my client in mind here for counsel's actions in not objecting to the completed mission of these interrogations or  residue found on a sweatshirt that had been in police rock a police custody for a year since what is after the shooting and no gun all we have here is recanted statement from my client's friend unbelievable testimony that my client shooting it was revenge there was going warfare in the area to gaming experts testified to my client and the attendant victims they never should and brings within those cakes the state ar opening statement closing argument yet he failed to ensure due to army can to ensure that the jury was not biased against gays from the outset the time to do that is when the judge said this do you want me to ask the jury any questions been allowed by the judge and would have given the defense the record his requisite assurance as much as you can be sure that you have an unbiased jury that knew him probably biased or slit throat the jury was told that they rejections either out of agreement with the trial judge or here or to the people to redacted but these objections weren't made than the over the statement was properly admitted the tice case is directly on point and it was ability there was no deprivation a fair trial with the absence of a limiting instruction moreover defendant had to admit that he was lying in a second statement anyway because the cell phone records contradicted where his whereabouts had been in the first statements so as a matter of strategy made sense to admit he was lying in that statement because it was contradicted by other evidence anyway and focus on attacking the time statement however possible the crime to him and thomas didn't recant until he was subpoenaed to testify at trial also it was clear why he would or qantas you said you were going to me looking for and when they found out that he told the police officers shooting will she was ayla but the only thing that if she's going to testify he was with me at eight thirty at the time of the shooting he would really be encouraging her to testify not saying oh you don't you don't have to u know just because he was and again couldn't be considered evidence of his guilt so that's just an alternative way of dealing with the issue and jurors have been questioned on their abilities to be impartial and fair in general so the instructive because in that case the court found no prejudice because jurors had been question generally on their ability to be fair even though there was no gang bias question in particular address the letter the judge apparently interpreted it as a motion for transcripts concerned that the defendant would be filing his motion for a new trial in time so he didn't deal with it he said it or i think she i think it was  she said that she was going to be extending the time to filing until sentencing and so that she blew she had dealt with the issue and the thrust of the letter defendant says he he wants to file a motion for a new tr who counsel which suggests that he was accepting the counsel he had and then when the motion for a new trial it was it was filed it was timely and defendant didn't take any issue with  the depend actually needed something evidence in because he he was alleging self defense in this case we have a what a great deal more prejudice because the victim here was a child it was not it was somebody that was not in the game