vast majority of them were investigators brezik sciences people who found evidence afterwords the state's case really boils down to three main witnesses and one of those witnesses of one of those witnesses bryan cunningham who attempts to tie my client to the gun and the third witnesses but when most of the phone calls just repeat the same information over and over again and doesn't add any have any evidentiary value the phone call of the only twenty seven twenty nine and evidence for your value because it shows by the witness tampering case two witnesses here's my problem with this piece of evidence there was sort of a copy of a conviction you know that proves he tampered with weapons witness tampering we were tracking was the mark tase is a little convoluted they never recover the phone that long but they look at wylie's phone and determine that a top of the top number was three three zero eight nine s paid in march of another crime and he had another phone number that ended with nine eight one zero and so they subpoenaed documents and they found out that seven of two numbers were the same were the same top ten numbers were the same and that led the police officer to conclude must be the same person i don't know on what basis that opinion comes from you have a large criminal drug spears going on here a lot of people probably using burner phones for the business and law most people could possibly have the same seven the same top ten numbers i mean i think that's speculation the second part of it mile mile radius so i don't think the case the state's case is strong enough to survive the other crimes of this i think i think the jury's focus was shifted away from the evidence for them he evidence they did present has of credibility problems i think those credibility problems are whitewash with the other crimes of events i believe my client deserves a new trial based on  well if the state could have use as you say only four or five of the phone calls to prove that fixing the house was code words for killing wi presented is they is relying on credibility of witnesses and it's rely on the credibility of witnesses it is by its very nature closely balanced and my client has a right to hav trial that's in front of the jury it only hears the amount of other crimes of this it should there was literally more of a crimes of this introduced in this case than there was evidence time the marquis coming into this crime at some point it what they did so they run out and grab they obviously have these people ready to hear testify because they were their witnesses so it's not like oh my god this is a big surprise we need to go find somebody to explain this clearly something that he's going to come up with an explanation that shows evidence of guilt when in fact have you done little bit more investigation to put down your perfectly innocent explanation of why isn't it just balance so clearly not applied on the merits this evidence was detailed only to the extent necessary to prove guilty knowledge and identity and the jury was instructed in this case that the evidence was going to be for guilty knowledge and identification was it just guilty knowledge and the evidence did not go beyond what was necessary was not presented in excruciating detail none of the witness the witness was more factual and relatively brief some of the witnesses testimony only which is only four pages and some of them for example which is like the first officer on the scene where the person who went to the hospital the evidence in fact the prosecutor carefully limited the evidence by deciding not to introduce how the wiley murder weapon had been found in addition to the extent that the evidence murder also there is no rule that requires the state to present a watered down version of events simply because otherwise highly probative evidence is unflattering to the defendant's deviling that defendant would go to to cover up his own murder a freedom and central is not shown just by the truncated evidence said defendant killed since yes or do you think this was a trial within the trial no i don't why no i think that i think that they the prosecutor carefully presented the evidence concerning the freedom and social murder central murder case first then it went and showed evidence of guilty knowledge and identification because there was no direct evidence statements to the police was admitted by under the statutory exception for intentional murder of a witness or more mature by wrong doing so and it has not been objected to that's before the  crime i think that the jury was entitled to know all of that and i don't think it was excessive because a lot of the witnesses were only four pages long they just like testified to i gathered this evidence from the hospital and get  it was given before in a death and box testifying to the private defendant said he bright him to shut him up it was given prior to riley's recorded statement to the police it was given prior to the testimony  it was given prior to the testimony about kendrick's and then it was given as a jury instruction a procedure of cautioning the jury to consider that evidence only for the limited purpose substantially reduce the potential pradesh prejudic confidence that he had shot them both and gave specific details such as that freedom had stolen fifteen thousand dollars from him giving him over to defend it use a nine mil miller millimeter handgun with a thirty two round magazine which is unusual type of weapon he shot freedom first then central and then checked freedom again to make sure he was dead all of that came in through wiley statement to the police which has not been in not an issue on appeal the testimony of aldermen all saying they were also at the house was a defendant was at the scene of the homicide ten minutes prior to the shooting and then there's calls from the local and the location of defendant's phone around the time of the double murder i think that the officers were able to state that defense home was home there in the area of his home that it was in the area of the homicide at the time of the night they went back to the defense didn't mention an opening defense side you will hear the prosecutors witness i think you he told the jury that they would hear him made him make calls which the prosecution was interpreted as fixing up the house repairs that need to be made did you know that the defendant own houses that you repaired there may call there was a call eight days after the shooting talking about fixing your house how can you know happened that means killing like trying to analyze the opinion and cut it apart so he got the opinion before the jury and then each picked apart and then toward the end of this question he lost control the witness in the witness started learning like mean i can't remember but oh oh he said when defense counsel object to the answer going to the ultimate decision daly said he gave his opinion from the the circumstances and there was any at there is no doubt in my mind the calls were discussed and then the objection there sustain the court instruct the jury to just disregard their personal opinions i think that that's had a plan objection i think that at that point the daily he did not answer the question i think the question was how can you asked by defense counsel and he opened the door i think you had a strategic person