each in turn time meeting this case tragedy i mean there's there's no two ways about it there was a motor vehicle accident in november of two thousand and eleven three passengers in the vehicle were killed it was a single car accident my client l the front seat passengers out of court statement to the police should have been admitted as substantive evidence in this case or was improperly admitted in that fashion and also was not proper as impeachment that statement was hinges on one particular requirements of the statute allowing for substitute use of prior out of court statements and that is the personal knowledge requirement and one people versus simpson the only supreme court recently that personal knowledge requirement in designing it the court said it wasn't enough were not put statement recounts another person's statement personal knowledge required by the statute is not satisfied by simply having received the statement being made personal knowledge must actually mean the individual perceived to be event which is the subject of the statement in this case again the statement hey morgan you shouldn't be doing that theo said he didn't see what that was that the backseat passenger would have been referring to he was preoccupied looking at  communicating with his mother did not see by the time field looked up and looked over at morgan it was the front seat passenger with my client by the time he looked over morgan what had slumped over in the car was drifting off the road state's witness requires that that would just have done some affirmative damage to your case it can't it's not enough to just being consistent it has to be affirmative damage and has to positively aid the opponent's case in this case yes test me would have had those things didn't do a fair bit of damage to the state's case they were disappointing i'm sure to the state that that was the testimony but the state's case was no worse off than it would have been had you not testified at all and it what you heard referring to this out of court statement i don't remember you can't remember you don't want to remember because he was your friend and there's an objection its over rule out the prosecutor restates you know is it that you don't remember  about does this come in under the statute had feeling knowledge the statement having said it heard it would be having a debate then about can it come in under one fifteen ten point one and that is where this case on described by the only constitution the case what was presented and found as aggravation in this case was simply the need for deterrence there was a horror host of mitigating evidence that was presented morgan blake is gone he was nineteen i believe when this accident happened he has a young family he has a wife he has young twin daughters that were nineteen months old at the time he was tried and are made to sentence their three and a half now this is not the sort of thing likely seriousness of the offense there is no question the result in this case was serious but the conduct in this case was in full set and the united states supreme court has been really clear recently that we ought to be looking at things like us and we tell you characteristics of you when we're fashioning an appropriate sentence for an individual nineteen young nineteen year olds nineteen year old boys the stupid decisions w medication against deterrence and coming up with a twelve year sentence too harsh of that probably a sentence morgan but he will have to spend ten years two months and twelve days in prison he's got a little over eight years to go from where we are today right now because of this ninety five percent sentence and i would suggest a court of justice discretion in imposing that twelve year term because to serve the purpose of deterrence a lesser term would do that a prison sentence is going to serve the purpose of deterrence and it was a six year minimum here the family certainly didn't the families of the victims the young men who were felt they didn't ask for it since the prison terms not that that's determinative but it's certainly indicative of what they saw as well that this is a tragedy it's a tragedy for everybody not just for the young men who lost their lives but for morgan but he lost his friends the sentence in this case standard of the people who contend that french ultimately did it making it referring to hearing a passenger saying hey morgan you shouldn't be doing that when fritz was asked isn't that you don't remember  attempting to expand from the facts and some sound in since then there was a witness who was not present at the time of the offense it was a beating he wasn't there when the beating occurred after last lack of memory and although i hope people have knowledge of one's piece of evidence that the trial judge did rely on the people's last argument in this regard would be that there was so much other a stop sign the day before he told another person he passed out at a stop sign the morning of the trial of specifically found that that person was lying to protect his friend and he told the person i believe that i don't defender and admitted puffing to before they have an accident although defense proof seeks a challenge whether he admitted it or not the trial judge just finding was that his statements to the officers were an admission  and that that was stupid or not he nodded his head and i believe he was asking you verbalize that and he says yes i know all the defendant tried argued that yes wasn't in reference to that the officer who this finding that that was an admission wouldn't be affected by whether this statement comes in or not it's just having interpreted the testimony of the two officers the enhanced recording of the transcript that was made so finding of the admission wouldn't change and then the other fact that the trial judge found supported this admission the travis found that it was defendant's like he had to go there to hammer out that   bought anything else the whole purpose of this walmart trip and it's even on video i'm buying this kind of air going back and bites and there the whole purpose was to buy that kind of air and have a safety stand on it when it was purchased the child is found but that legal standards here are set out there early and be fourteen of my brief they are what determines the answer in this case depending on who's now the trial judge failed to give adequate weight to the mitigating evidence and his rehash judge ignored the mitigation evidence that was before him going to mention specifically many of these pieces of mitigation on the record and that he was considering them however was a very serious offense three teenagers died there families were devastated they didn't ask really seeing one of them said we'll never forgive them we should have to live it over and over and over again because we have to live it again over every day another family member it feels not to be able to see his children because the parent couldn't see their child so to the extent that it's argued that the families were all in favor of something close to the minimum the people just know that their their statements reflect the serious damage that was was done to their families so it's not in this court to reweigh the sentencing factors and nothing shows that the judge didn't consider the mitigation that accident so i don't think we should not fully discount naturist money i don't think the huffing and mission is really that strong as the state suggest looking back in my statement of facts and i don't have a full record in front in the room of the time he's been back that opposite he's looking at the officers not at his son i don't think edition is a strong as the state represents it to be regardless this isn't a reasonable doubt argument it's just is there a reasonable probability that the outcome likely would have differed without this testimony and this was significant this is the only kind of direct it's not even really direct evidence that anybody saw morgan do something question of what the victims families were in favor of not having to live it over and over one of the things that was suggested it may have been in that context was would be a good idea from are going to want to talk about this to other kids you know and that's really weird deterrence comes from not from being at six years of twelve years or eighteen years or you know whatever sentence would be imposed deterred by the thought that you could do something like this you could do something that would take your own life that would take your friend's life that would ruin your life forever that determines the difference between a secure sentence in a twelve year sentence when the only aggravation only aggravating the court found was deterrence is arbitrary to pick that number in for that