priestly kicked in that window the evidence on that issue is so minimal in this quote in this case that having a prosecutor turn around and tell the jury forget about what the defendant is that only listen to the state's evidence he didn't prove his innocence ignore what he says because it's irrelevant it is so serious that not only does it set aside the magnitude but it just goes to show that the evidence is so close on the issue that there really was nothing else that could be said the only evidence that there l the evidence that the fed did present the prosecutor the student in turn told the jury ignore it he didn't prove his innocence his statements were self serving they don't mean anything they're irrelevant just ignore it and just listen to what the state has told you and obviously that's an incorrect statement of law the jury is required to listen to all of the evidence that's presented in there and i think both of the prongs have been established the students prosecutors are giving students prosecutors the time from which they went from new york street entered the middle school want to go back in the middle school and they did the window the question of accountability in this case which i believe the prosecutors are afraid to in closing argument of that issue was students statements about the defendant proving his innocence is quote gloss on the record quote and there are very specific comment that the defendant had to prove his innocence so i'm not sure given that these these two references are right particularly meant by gloss on the record because i think the council is taking those arguments to say  to to the police had they been part of his prior statements they would have tended to exonerate him of the offense i think that everybody is sort of mr right below us to the law countability so when i'm looking at this from an accountability perspective that the question of defense intent was a factual question for the jury to resolve and quite simply i think the counsel was just commenting on deficiencies in the other as it was presented so you can see it would be pretty eas here to understand how it's ok to say then doesn't prove the defendants innocent or that doesn't prove that he's not guilty i think that i think that the i think the point first of all was not especially w closing argument from the perspective of what the prosecutor must have meant or an objective standard as to how it would sound to the jury will i sunia records the writer  at the comments in isolation it could be viewed that way but i think when you take the comments as a whole at this point in the closing argument she was the prosecutor was referencing the defendant's prior statement to the police  i mean it's strictly speaking she was only talking about the evidence i don't think if you if you view the words as the words i don't think that they are shifting if you start asking yourself you know statement i mean and even if true even if those comments were true even if the argument that the prosecutor was making was actually true i don't i don't think that that action would have proven his innocence or would have proven him not guilty of the offense i mean it's conceivable honestly that he tells the  you know i mean i think i think to me nothing shows that more than the fact that you know it's going back to will pass because that's what the law says and she never really qualifies you know what she's talking about what she means the law as i said before i particular piece of evidence or piece now or testimony given by the state and she said something like consider the state's evidence in reaching here heard it so i mean clearly wasn't that a signal to the jury that they were to ignore the evidence put on by the defendant or at least that they didn't have the capital get a shoo in to consider the totality of the evidence looking to let me put it this way  injury just as your honor just misquoted it is up to you to take the testimony and evidence presented to you by the state period they asked how in the jury it isn't jack to believe the jury's listening to this and going oh ok we don't have to pay attention to the defendant this this is a case where this was a very straightforward common by a student in turn who needs guidance and she wasn't getting it the other comment that i do want to make a couple of other comments mr d state and it's a great program it's a great learning program so this is discourse opportunity to kind of make statement maybe that this student maybe wasn't guy had as much as she should have been there is a guidance element to most on the money and this student did not get thank