good morning your honor my name is deborah bookout i represent petitioner appellant jeffrey bradley one of the issues presented in this case today is whether the admission of the nine one one tapes which was found to be a violation of a case that clearly demonstrates why that is at the time of the district court's decision this court had not yet decided by acting and whether crawford was to be applied retroactively nevertheless the district court found relying on injuries effect on the loss on the jury's verdict what was the most egregious issue or evidence that came out and let them take in the nine one one tapes you hear in the background one or more people yelling he has a gun he's beating her so clearly there was only one defendant clearly those statements were and what's the evidence from any other witnesses that he had a gun  statements on the tape however cross examination was the only effective in testing in attacking the credibility of those witnesses which i think is reflected in the jury's verdict which was to acquit on three of the counts so the inability of mr bradley to effectively cross examine the one or more people that were on the tape clearly affected the jury's verdict and the jury was already concerned about the credibility of the trial witnesses so the tapes come in with this damaging and powerful testimony that's completely untested and well more than one person with a weapon yes they all did which i think i think is one of the reasons why the introduction of the tapes was heart was harmful and had an effect on the jury's verdict the witnesses were clearly not credible to the jury based on their verdict and but the tapes weren't just the statements in the tapes are just duplicative or cumulative they in fact corroborate these other otherwise not credible witnesses which made their testimony that much more credible and then and then within the tape itself those statements for made that much more credible because they're completely untested i don't understand how you can say that but it shows that the jury  kidnapping and felony charge and bribing witness all of the witnesses testified to certain elements of each of those counts of each of those crimes but he was acquitted of one of the burglaries and court my name is jamie rush i'm here in the house to respond to james show me let me talk for a minute about some of the facts relating to the nine one one telephone call and then we'll discuss why the admission of that call this harmless fair kaino did testify at the trial and from everything that we have on the record it appears he is indeed the voice if there was a voice that we hear on the nine one one call he testified that he went and met with him and i would you know that that's his voice because keno testified that he's the one that that incidence and he's the one that says he made the call well he didn't he didn't he wasn't actually the one who makes the call he's the one who directed peter to make the call yes you know those threats peter to make the telephone call but as far as bradley's consuls know it we don't have the call for us we don't know what the substance of these voices being shot it is however what we do have in the record is discussions between trial counsel and the prosecutor which appeared indicate that the substance of the call was that bradley has a gun basically of a man fitting his description that that person to the extent that the admission of the call was a violation of crawford i believe it simply would be found to be harmless where there isn't anything unique about the information in the call that wasn't presented by other eyewitness testimony and this argument that the argument that while we maybe could have impeached the person who made the telephone call i believe that simply speculation there bradley has appointed anything that he would say isn't accurate about the call it i don't feel that it's him and obviously he disagreed her client was acquitted on some of these counts and that shows in fact the nine eleven call was very important to make that out well i might point out that this is a b a so the presumption is going to be that the conviction is valid at this point we don't go second guessing what the jury was or wasn't doing the presumption is they properly weigh the evidence and they did have a gun the things which he was acquitted of were charges which i believe at least were solely supported by lisa bradley's testimony so if there is an argument that someone's credibility could have been attacked indeed that person was lisa bradley in a credibility was attacked the you know the case arises out of what appear to be two separate incidents bradley comes to the hotel and arguably enters the room and receive some one hundred thirty dollars from lisa under circumstances which were alleged to be a robbery he then returns with a firearm and this is where we see the record the instance of him allegedly dragging her out of the room by her hair and this is this is the event which keno season this is the time  bradley that they promised specifically that they would speak on her behalf at her upcoming revocation hearing and explain to the court that she was not gone or because she was the victim of domestic violence  depending on what part of his argument you were listening to and the problem with that is because there was some weighing of the credibility of each witness the failure to of the state to disclose this further impeachment evidence of mr bradley clearly affected the jury's verdict mr bradley's due process rights were violated by the state's feller to disclose this impeachment evidence and in conjunction with the confrontation rights violation