permanent damage to the state's case to put the significance of the videos into perspective i do like to point out that the state's case took essentially two and a half days to try the state presented the number that was eventually stricken so i'm assuming that with all this time we're looking at roughly fifteen hours of testimony that was well before the jury all of that two and a half hours was the interview of the police of the videotape and the officers testimony that day and you have the identification witnesses and believe the first thirty five minutes of this two and a half hours of video consisted of the police speaking with the defendant about that this did not include in admission by the defendant in a wasn't a video where for instance the police needed to show that they hadn't browbeaten the defendant that was voluntary or explain how it was the defendant came to implicate himself in the us there was never an admission throughout all this instead what the video serve to do was five particular thing the first of which was that it served as a showcase of the officers of his repeated statements by the officers that the defendant was not credible that he was a liar by nature as was probably the very conclusion of the interview not something that was used to set a well well to push the defendant in a certain way or to show how the statement cheney that at the end just a bad statement that he was neat liar by nature and so the true thing the entire day throughout all of this then keep in mind that what we have now in is the statement of the defendant through the  versus the identification and through all that not only are the officers stating that they don't believe the defendant but they're balancing for the credibility of the people that they've spoken to so you have hearsay statements and there's a third matter the fact that the police through those are bouncing around the unknown witnesses saying that they're credible saying that the statements were separate not made together and yet nonetheless were consistent so the police are laying the foundation video there was also an admission of gaining evidence the officer said we have facebook pictures and they they open the file and they show to the defendant pictures the jury never sees those so now we're invading in the officers for instance were subject to cross examination but the defendant's mother wasn't subject to cross examination there was no way to determine or it's has the case that was presented by the state through evidence which was rather weak in this case and it can't be said they had had this evidence not been presented that there wouldn't have been a reasonable chance that the outcome in this case would have been different so  tonight a time when it's dark in a sense that happened with just seconds and under circumstances where people were running at least two of the witnesses stated that they had never been that scared in their life one who said that she had been able to focus on the defendant for up to i believe ten seconds told the police beforehand and she had spent most of the time hiding behind a tree and that she really hadn't seen anything and then her initial statement she said that she couldn't  wasn't a description truly that was what was sent was it was new kill the name was given right away but there wasn't a description for comparison and the description would have noted a couple of things and  the back room moment there was a description that he was sure the deal was seeing this in his being five foot seven inches tall i'm five and seven three quarters so i like to think that that is not short but it hardly it hardly sets to anything for the police to look at and if you look at the pictures that were shown in one of the primary witness the one who was most certain of her identification and she she identified him by name and she said relied on the hair but everybody remembered that he was wearing a hoodie that there was little opportunity to notice there there was also if you look at the pictures little opportunity to know this is yours which are or i want to say announce but it's because they're not pronounced they're very tight to his head and they don't compare her very well to some of the other people who were wounded in the photo lineup as well one of the people in the in the photo lineup  was thirty five years of age or crossing only twice the age of the there there wasn't that much that suggested that this was a concrete identification and again if you take away even if you want to knock it down to a close identification again we have the tipping of the scales because of the statements that the police make but straining the the statements that they had been given in investigat a concerning issue is the the state's apparent indication that it's enough that this is simply on videotape that that's all it takes and if that becomes the steps the council should have been to make certain the tape more clearly presented the defendant in terms of excluding some of these clearly improper commons and and the state could have done so without damaging the state's case and you still would have been able to see the change in the defendant's story and you would have been able to observe his demeanor and he was also observing the officers demeanor and that took up much of the tape and  ferocity and his credibility and judging his statement against other factors and bringing up the contradictory statements that were made throughout but it also highlights i guess a couple of concerns one he has had the entirety of that not been admitted in the state's case there's a question as to whether the defendant would have chosen to testify in an attempt though perhaps failed to clarify or to explain the statements that were presented by the police the second thing is that essentially game three opportunities or the defendant's statements to be presented the initial statement that was presented by the police  all day all night but i don't see any way how what counsel did in this case prejudiced his client i don't see it for a second as justice with a mention very appropriately during mr whitman's argument the see i would miss identification in this case was not it wasn't even close to it was very very strong there were four eyewitnesses that identified this the fended as having walked up to a group of people that were standing there and shooting it to the three people who were killed one was not there was no question in the news identifications counsel testified that it was getting late and that the lighting was not good i believe the totality of the testimony in this case was that the evidence was absolutely good enough to make these identifications there was the only one who testified that the light was not good was jordan cable's was shot and not killed favor of of a weak identification here they are number two in the interview they're all standing there they all saw him and it doesn't matter what chaos erupted after the shooting that's completely irrelevant it had it's after the fact they saw this person big because they knew them they were able to see who this was it didn't matter if they ran away immediately you know it's easy to recognize people you know you know you didn't have to this isn't a case where they pieced together oh he was this brief conceded that that trauma favors the state so we're very strong eye witnesses in this case and again we're talking about in effect the assistance of counsel here that's what we're talking about the substantive issues have been forfeited so we have we have strong witnesses we have a lot of them and other people would also submit that he either fenton's version of events in the videotape is also a strong evidence that he he doesn't have any credibility it very that which is there and so am i but one thing particularly says that he didn't change his story after this first story in the tape was that he was at home all day and then he hit the first time he changes he said that he was at shaquan metals house all day on the witness stand he said after he told the police that the texans that he was at your client's house all day that he didn't change your story at all that's what he testified to that was a clear lie because he clearly changed the story again on the stand on the videotape and the third is the story of the tape was that he went to shaquan city went to the barber shop that he went to wal mart some place called the bar i don't know if that was the barbershop i don't remember but  you the effect on me the fund it's my the statements in the video were relevant to explain the course of the investigation and fisa and that's what i argue in this case law course of the investigation yes right yes that's what the self yeah now you're prejudice because that is just as important as whether or not his his performance in allowing these statements and opinions and arguable hearsay are in for in front of the jury prejudice is just as important prong into the friend and can't meet it here there was no pre was not there an additional concern about the video a young girl do you agree that this was about reality of the sounds about right if i remember correctly and it was at the beginning of the trial i think yeah i think so and we have a lot of his law that says that the police are not required to be truthful when they're interrogating witnesses oh they can make up anything that they want to make  h and and it strikes me that we're getting a lot of stuff coming in on these videos that really is not credible in the of itself because what what he believes is inadmissible raise those objections but we have different levels of jurisprudence here i guess i'm not that's the right word but it's gotten to this point and he council has raised the issue but all i can argue is this case at this particular time and whether or not this particular trial counsel was ineffective for allowing this particular tape to get in at this particular time and i'm just i'm sorry i still very strongly believe th council wasn't ineffective because i don't believe with the complete lack of credibility from this the fund and the strong eyewitnesses that there was just no prejudice here whatever happened in the tape i don't see how it affected the the actual testimony that was given in in attacking the credibility because of all the inconsistency east of the defenders versions of the facts as set forth not from witnesses on this do you know not to do this probably can see that you would have been ok and they would have been ok if in just the defendant's statements and and not anything from the detectives were made on this video that's the impression i'm getting because i have no evidence to the contrary if the defendants and only the defendant's statements in the video let's see if they were if it was edited so it's just the defendant's statement back to back to back i and i don't see how there would have been any objection to that in this case thank you so therefore the entirely i'm talking about the statements you know the statement they complain of the you know statements that are complaining about sharp how do they come up and under what rules of evidence for the company or are they becoming in the support of the ins or as to my my original starting point but i'm going to go back to my original starting point is this prejudice is i've got one last question what about the i know how let's go to bet that's the only thing that's highlighted under my second issue so let's go to the prejudice again i feel like the evidence was really strong other than the deficiencies made perhaps of this tape and not again of the substance of that that was forfeited as well you i do want to get today he can eventually since i didn't get to it earlier and since the question came up but first i want to address a couple of points that were discussed here a few moments ago one is and there's nothing to prevent that from from being used during the interview but it's not something that then should be allowed to be presented to the jury and that's that's the concern that we have here in turning to a discussion and i hope i'm pronouncing it the detectives the leave the case does not reveal that there are two statements where the detective says well i spoke with her and she was honest with me but he doesn't say what that statement was and orse you know she gave me her version and that's why we're here but there wasn't a repeat of what it was that the other witnesses said here we're dealing with a lot of double hearsay and that's the serves to bolster the statements then that are made on the witness stand where they invite and challenge and that's one of the great concerns that we're dealing with in this case and one of the differences between this case and times and while there was a course of investigation to be shown and the impact on the listener and i mentioned that in my opening argument that there are times when the police are trying to show well we pushed this way and this is what the statement let's it that didn't happen in this case there was no revision by the defendant in terms of whether it committed the offense or were as in tough as it was a sexual abuse charge and the defendant there was a suggestion of well you know did you ever change diapers and that was odd because there wasn't question first about changing the diaper and the defendant brought that up somewhat defensively and the tech the one with that than to say well you know that there was an impact on the listener and that there was a change in evolution not just of the investigation but of the statement that was made and that's a large part of the reason the ties allowed that statement in but again it wasn't as in this case repl with double hearsay and it wasn't something in this case where there was that sort of change in the statement that was made in the large part i think the answer to the question of how did this this is because counsel didn't challenge the statements that were made in general terms and that happened entices what was noted in ties that there was no objection to the admission of the statement at least here it was an initial injection by counsel and then an argument regarding the you know what of those things should be gotten into and it's first stated that council took it one step but then walked a while and what it was that was excluded we don't know what we do know is the great extent of the large variety of things that were gotten into evidence simply because the muslim didn't at least try to have the tape redacted and their watch portions that needed officers say these people were credible they were consistent they told their stories separately he goes the little it lays the foundation and then when the with this is actually come in the other thing is there's a suggestion that there were a whole host of other  also note that again evidence was excluded because the state was unable to make its foundation and they brought in a surgeon to testify as to them descendants and that was kept out and  and then there was an objection before the evidence really got into anything and they discovered that they did not have a witness who could identify the defendant as being and again there was there was gaining evidence to the extent of this is that is i believe the disregarded evidence regarding games and i'm making the distinction that there was nothing to tie the defendant to gang activity and then we have this video coming would with the one witness who waited thirty days or more to come forward you would understand that by that point there are threats that are made but there was nothing to indicate certainly nobody indicated that the defer and that made any threats and if the defendant is the shooter was acting alone then i don't understand how it is that within that time period there was a threat that could be made or one of stanley scared and the sister was obviously understandably most but much of that weaknesses with in the identification testimony that had they not been improperly about or in had there not been other improper evidence there would have been a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different from and therefore we have said that this matter