also had found because that they were charged with those charges the same thing he had found that of the two people that could have possibly committed this crime it was not valerie pain then not us who made a finding that must have been mr martinez who committed th n and he did lots of exams and he reviewed the records in this case correct and dr spitz was offered for the purpose of testifying the thieve mother even though she was six months pregnant would have had the physical also i may have started allowing the states also label the defendant a beast twice over objection the judge also made some other questionable rulings in this case that show  bias for example allowing the state to the state of involuntary manslaughter now the the state basically told the jury that to give them an example of what involuntary manslaughter w hug and maybe that caused this there's no evidence that would even support and involuntary manslaughter well i mean certainly the jury was considering it heavily or they wouldn't of you know raise that issue i'll say it's a seventy one right partner have no idea how many defendant in it for money and he came back and said he did right right and we i mean we would argue that maybe they would have found differently had they did the ruling that the judges the judge made throughout this trial been different if he had you  know recused himself at the beginning or if in fact me proper willing throughout the trial because every and every willing that he makes although he is not the trier of fact does lead to the jury's verdict and these were crucial mistakes that he made throughout the ntary manslaughter they were discussing this at length so far as you know two days in a day and half of deliberation to the point where they said they were in the impasse over this very issue so the fact that the state then did make that second st also here improperly did not give the jury i'm sorry he improperly gave the jury the transcripts of the state's medical examiner knowing full well that the defense examiners transcript was on unavailable due to  the fact that it had not been prepared to ask what this lead to was that although the jury then asked for the transcript of all of the witnesses they were not given the transcript of the medical examiner and where as we discussed the key here was  but also talked about the adrenaline that comes from an act like this and so basically in the deliberation room the jury had all the transcripts of all the state's witnesses including this witness  suggestion that hey you give them this if you know this expert and you don't have our expert this is going to create an unfair balance but again the defense expert was it was man so right no and apparently three no problem deciding which murder him rather it was a one on one of them had committed some more brutal of the acts and that my client as i stated earlier perhaps the spare home pushed the child past this was certain point where the injuries you know resulted in his dad or something similar to that the jury could have found so if the jury you know if the jury thought that she had done the more you know the acts that you have described they could have found that the acts that martinez committed were only reckless that if there are no further questions may please the court assistant state's attorney peter multis on behalf of the people defendants in this case has proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after receiving a fair trial this court is required to look at the evidence in the most unlike most favorable to the have the opportunity the defendant had a motive defendant had the ability and the defendant had a long history of reacting violently when he became angry the disparity between the sizes and the strength of a whole defendant the night before the murder that she was planning on leaving him and she was playing and giving up her unborn child up for adoption defendant answered because your child is ill i can't have my son  defendant was left alone throughout the day with the child it's true that the mother was left alone briefly with the child towards the end of the day however a during their period of time the mother of the mother hours after after the child was found dead that that the child was acting up all day he certainly didn't mention any any extreme injuries and that somebody would have a gruesome heart whose loans whose lives will never rains swelling only brought about as effect of the judge might have used some some evidence in the sentencing hearing of valerie in the sentence at the scene hearing the winning an allegation issue it's important to note that the jury didn't ask for all the transcripts at the beginning the jury asked specifically for the transcripts of the medical examiner and the court inquired from the jury that they did this to those transfer good counsel it is the ultimate responsibility of what the jury gets back there is the judge's jury doesn't get to dictate what they want when they want the judge makes the ultimate decision as to what would be fair what is proper for them to have sacked right that's correct and so you know the fact that the judge decided well i'm going to give you some of the transcript we wouldn't have been better for the judge to say we don't have all the transcripts here so you know the jury rely on the information you have the important facts however a step back for just testified six days before the liberation there was a reason to consider that the jury was that she's struggling trying to remember her her testimony dr spence on the other hand had just completed testimony prior to deliberation it's and the fact that they didn't ask for those shows that they think clearly remember it's just that they remembered very clearly with the more recent person is it maybe they just wanted to emphasize something in the state's state's witnesses test or your router is correct we don't know what what the jury specifically was we have some of them are being completed and we are making inquiries we guarding the remainder of the testimony mean testimony from now we're in the second day of deliberation  jury continued to send questions to the court and the court into the interesting enough when the court asked when the jury asked the court the final question regarding regarding  card there's no evidence in the record that he read the sentencing hearing now this took place on a different thing in the trial there's no reason to explain why defense counsel would review the sentencing hearing you know if you read the trial to see the evidence presented against her as well as the testimony but there's no