have and she will have the benefit of the oral arguments today so with that in mind i will revise both of you that you have about fifteen minutes for your moral argument and from consider this prior conviction for something other than pietschmann purposes and usually the defendant having committed a crime before is likely to be guilty of the crime that's charged in this case was basically a repeat of the previous trial so the jury was already being tasked with considering whether the triplett was responsible for its accounts because of what it is murder and whether there was some connection between the two crime to powerful for the jury to fairly consider the shiny icing assuming you're correct yes and so yes so that's part of the question is the other part of the prejudice here is that this was an entirely circumstantial case that the state put forward this impeachment evidence never correct and our argument is that the evidence was not so overwhelming so the evidence here was purely circumstantial and triplett himself testif evidence you could not you could say it took them a week because whatever but others would say it took a week to put in all the evidence that was presented that was mark against him in this particular case but that doesn't mean that the case is overwhelming was this is all words that yuri would have to think about and decide whether or not that was actually present work if they completely reject it which is apparently what the i don't think we then decide whether that prejudicial error i don't think gets into the question of whether something is harmless beyond reasonable doubt i certainly think it does not cause the whole point of this going government test is the danger of unfair prejudice and if you see that there's a danger of unfair prejudice here by definition that's prejudiced against the defendant unfairly imposed against shirk and i understand that but i think you're getting something now to see whether or not the defense was entitled to present at least the bare minimum of these facts to show it's possible there's someone else who might have committed these crimes fortune really grey's reasonable doubt in the minds of the church that trip indeed i think that an important factor here is that amount of evidence the state was allowed to present of its other crimes evidence it was truly truly fair for the defense to not be able to to the defendant that's something that is a factor that's not at play here because the defense trying to put in this evidence and if you're a fish in it it's not really comparing the modus operandi to evidence of other right we don't do conducted and the court excuse me in those written motions and during the argument defendant made the same arguments that he raises in this appeal and the court heard those arguments and heard those claims and before making its ruling the trial this case on this case this is really like all those others he was there was the trial within this trial so to speak when the state introduces evidence peace him if he should be testifying about a murder conviction ok this is a totally different kind of slate you have evidence of another crime which happens to be a murder and for that particular event tell me about one of these cases you've cited that was similar to this particular scenario here i was in those cases are part of similar to the scenario what happened in this case however distinct legal purpose to chile is presumed to follow the instructions that they're given and the druid was specifically in for that they could only consider the evidence and the court repeatedly every time what a witness testified as right to put up with it the trial relevance and in a council spoke about the police yes the police looked at those cases at st blush there are some generic similarities and they investigated it but just because the police were thorough doesn't somehow make those two cases relevant to this case and council also talked about that given the fact that the state had presented so much evidence of course whiskies that they should have been allowed to present some evidence of these other backed up cases but this is not the because you'll be hard pressed to think of a case where the prior conviction would be even more prejudicial than what happened here the state argued that that prior conviction was crucial to determining triplets credibility but the state was able to cross examine him that way and present all of the evidence of that other supporting that other conviction that the jury didn't need to know about that conviction or sorry to figure out what would the court do it be granted your motion and then he's basically denying that other than mine so the jury would be left to what decide whether he she'll feel that other crime is well yes i mean that's why the state even though he had already been convicted of that offense but the jury doesn't need to hear about the fact of the prior conviction but it has all of the evidence from the trial in front of them already and has triplets testifying in front of them under oath and i guess a final point would be going to what we talked about earlier with you know whether there was overwhelming evidence of guilt or not essentially if you had the states a circumstantial case against triplets testimony and if the jury found triplett to be credible then the jury would convict and so the evidence against him is not so overwhelming that this impeachment evidence that