are four issues in this case first there was a reasonable doubt issue and today's though i would be focusing in on issues two and three which of all new trial issues the first issue  involves a number of mistakes a trial resulting in human have cumulative error and prejudice to the defendant and the second issue is that the complainant testimony failed to allow for cross examination within the competition cla failed to establish two of the counts the defendant was charged with have the final issue is that the sentence was excessive and of course i am prepared to answer questions on any of the four issues mr robinson respectfully request that this court reverses conviction outright and if this court elects natura versus conviction our right he requests that this court reverses conviction and remand for a new trial and then the alternative mr robinson as this court reduces sentence as discussed in the reasonable doubt issue this was a closed case there was no physical evidence and there was no eyewitnesses this entire case hinged on the credibility of the complainant s t any mistake at trial could have shifted the balance in this case and there were several several mistakes made here first the court erred in finding that robinson opened the door to admission of his two thousand and five drug conviction prior to trial the court ruled that the two thousand and five conviction was too was highly prejudicial and should not come in for impeachment purposes because there was already a two thousand and repeated criminal sex abuse conviction coming in for propensity purposes the court that the alternating jury instructions would be too confusing and that the average layperson would not understand that this conviction here could be used for propensity to show that this person is likely to commit crimes versus this other two thousand and five drug conviction could only come in for impeachment purposes the court found that that would be too confusing to have alternating instructions and it would be too prejudicial for the two thousand and five vacation to come in the court said that mr robinson could open the door to the conviction coming in if he made some kind of statement that he had not been in trouble since two thousand now at trial the court found that mr robinson opened the door to the two thousand and five conviction when he said he had when the police came to arrest him because it was never good when the police came to his neighborhood this statement in no way opened the door it in no way implied that he had not  secondarily relevant because he applied the montgomery standard and he found that the judge found that it was highly prejudicial and it is highly prejudicial it is confuse thing for a jury to have to differentiate between those two jury instructions and i mean there's already the two thousand case coming and adding an additional felony is only more and more prejudicial year to that if and then in the court's original ruling was fine and the the state never argue that their original ruling was bad the steve merely said oh this statement opens the door but that doesn't make sense because the statement that police when it's not good when the police come to the neighborhood especially when you know you have a pending arrest warrant and the tactical team surrounds the house that's never a good sign sign that in no way implies that he has been in troubles and two thousand so ending in that second two thousand and five conviction is only bandish i'll only continues to pile on to the you know the negative things that we find out about defendant in this the court should not have found that the original this statement opened the door and this is two thousand and five conviction should never have come in the court next year you know allowing in evidence that a thirteen year old victim in an unrelated case this two thousand pieces became pregnant and had an abortion obviously an abortion is a very sensitive subject and the evidence of the two thousand conviction that defendant was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse with a thirteen year old is certainly enough evidence for a propensity in this case there is no allegation in this case that there was a pregnant complain actual result to be the same but certainly abortion piled on top of this already was there were you know it was irrelevant and it was inflammatory and it did nothing but have the there was a there was an extensive one fifteen ten hearing connected some of the year here's the statements were allowed to come in and then shootings before trial as she said there robinson didn't do it she said she lied because of the way he denied making the outcry statements from the one thousand and ten hearing there in the row the trial testimony convicted monroe unlike here where it was these hearsay statements from the victim sensitive interview that essentially ten hearing that most certainly would have been used as a factor in determining whether those years the statements were reliable the fact that she recanted after the one fifteen ten year hearing is no less relevant and the co the court really should have reexamined the statements in light of the new evidence especially because the entire case hinged on the hearsay statements from the b s i especially because it was a  imagine if i were a ten year old little girl and this is happening to me it probably felt like an hour the courts sustain an objection and then the at a is a said if you're a ten year old little girl it probably felt like an hour it probably felt like a week a month the as they persisted in an almost identical statement which was improper considering the court had just sustain the objection and then the a's they did the same thing again and making a comment about some a evidence she stated that surely defendants d n a would have been all over the house because you live there and defense counsel objected because there was no evidence of that anywhere and is a the for you know you cannot ring the bell the jury heard it in light of the closeness of this case any one of these trial lawyers could have tipped the scale in favor of conviction you collectively the ears deprived defendants have a fair trial not only was this a closed case with a number of trial errors but mr robinson was convicted based on out of court accusations which violated the safe the man and right to confront his accuser there were four counts charged in this case and two of them were not brought up under testimony i'm cross examination as to deny that robbins it did anything and instead accused sam who was a boy from the neighborhood court in people vs kids had the opportunity to disagree with learns holding that the one fifteen ten that the rule one fifteen ten and the confrontational confrontation clause require the complain yourself available to defend or explain the prior statement she did not make because he was a tory statements she did not accuse miserableness then she instead denied that mr based on her videotaped hearsay semen take a man and he had no opportunity to cross examine on those on the to have elements that were not introduced during direct testimony as he was not sufficiently have ailill under kitsch to be effectively cross examined to defend or to explain the hearsay and as it should not have been admitted it specially when the language in kids said that  the complainants direct testimony standing alone was sufficient to convict and that was specified or testimony and in the alternative this case can also be still in the house when the defendant left the household then she made this statement to her mother and the core of her statements to be mother minor inconsistency s but the core of dead evidence was not only overwhelming evidence that would corroborate he also corroborated the fact that the defended threatened to kill her and her family if he she told anybody what do you do when you're dealing with d in front of the mother and his wife would go out with this other girl friends and he motherhood's them this function of attachment to she did not want to go over her testimony and she said that the defendant didn't do it over before they had see put her head down she was very somber and she looked up at the mother and then she looked down again and she said in a very quiet voice he didn't do it this greatly suggests that the mother but it's so inconsistent with what she told the people for days it would be just so happened and it just just for purposes of argument here stand yes it's the jury's determination to determine the credibility of the witnesses in the way to get did those testimonies but so and people so if you take that standard of review you need to give the evidence slightly more weight perhaps th use is one of the factors in determining whether these out of court hearsay statements are reliable or not so obviously i have recantations are found to be useful in some cases especially when  about i mean there is no physical evidence eyewitnesses i would agree that repeating what as he told them at the hospital is a fact robbery every instance that the state mentions that could be evidence that she that the mom was influencing her to try to get defended to have come home can be flipped the same way to say that she said mom was using the child or that the child was trying to please the mom by making up this story about mr robin said as a sort of revenge for the horrible you know philandering and you know flaunting the relationship with the other girlfriends in front of her you know her being quiet and looking down i mean these are all evidence also of a guilty conscience our you know realizing that this is gone very far you know they're heading into a trial and it's no longer funny when somebody's life and freedom  essentially on the line so these instances of well her story was an you know her original story was true because she was looking at the mom for confirmation while she might have just also been