it was admitted in violation of rights confrontation the jury was instructed on a legal theory that was not supported by the evidence and its trial counsel fail to make use up valuable impeachment evidence against the only witness in court who placed good lawyer the scene because of the highly prejudicial nature of the confrontation error because of the confusion and lack of confidence of the jury's verdict regarding the wider area and because of the looking at in terms of they they resolved any sort of doubt terms of who intention government when it's when it's police officers seeking it's the intent of the of the police officers terms of what you know whether or not  more importantly i think that you know why we get to the constitutional issue here is because we have a case i mean because of the importance of side how closely sudden sort of winds up with our facts i think that it's critical th offender at that point but still at large then despite the state's contention in that case that because they were in a residential area of the victim the officers and anyone who might encounter the assailant may be an imminent danger the court found the officers questions were not directed at addressing the ongoing emergency the court noted that by the time the victim was placed in the ambulance the crime scene or been secured the statements that activists were just out of the testimony in this case clearly to result out i mean again looking at our facts there's there theoretically there most be there might be other shooters out there but that's you know what what what what sutton i think was was absolutely concerned with is the fact factual bit that when the police arrived on the scene they heard someone moaning when they pulled up in front of the house and it turned out the victim was always back in the house into the attic rolling around his back in pain when he was put into th slugs laying there and there were two or three from the weapon that we were talking about that i guess someone asked who had two different weapons that may very well at some point in time we were there two different weapons at some point in time she different weapons were on those victim's identification of it and it have an effect i think would be very a crucial a very important yeah absolutely and i think that that's why this case there's absolutely for this to be reversed since it was in a danger declaration have a witness's testimony doesn't really offer much of anything and we have any conclusive or i mean not in the suit but we have sort of questionable circumstantial evidence surrounding that this clearly would have an impact on a rational shara fact and we we have a jury that that that was making you know findings that that indicated that perhaps there was some sort of errors going on between you know over what the court said in terms of that there there was a possible inconsistency in what the  a man ringing doorbells and knocking on doors the police are right the victim walks up the police and tells them that he's been shot and robbed and that his girlfriend has been shot and he has blood on his face blood on his clothes and the police ask here especially we're looking at potentially five minutes between the time the police received the call the kind the police report they made the arrest they really five minutes this is a result of the police to secure the scene make sure that there that's a tough case