me that logic would dictate that in this kind of situation where you've got a a separate person going through a break up custody fight you know all the  or go through that she would she would tell people that he's going to get me there's going to fill me whatever like that but not sit back and say well i'm just going to make this  and deliberately see these things to all these different people that that doesn't jive with common experience well that's  case we don't always have evidence coming from the mouth of the victim but in this case dr markey testified to you from beyond the grave and thank god she had the foresight to tell these other people what she try and she's doing it for the purpose and this is the state's own she's doing it for the purpose of those statements will be available at trial in the event of her yeah she was out there so this is just an amazing coincidence that seized the court found so in full my name is anastacia groups that i represent the people in this case i usually don't like to talk about forfeiture it's kind of a boring topic but it's kind of an important issue in this case because when the state does rely on a harmless error analysis on the merits of the evidentiary issue that it raises with respect to the applications here is takes action which is statutory if it also raises a constitutional claim which is not preserved and of course there are different show that prejudice rather than the state for her preserved errors to demonstrate that they persuade the court that it's actually a harmless error and therefore the conviction should be affirmed so for that reason it is important to recognize review the record at least i saw that it looked like only the reliability which is the argument that there was enough trustworthiness under the statute was the issue it was relied upon both in the trial for  context and the other cases i do show that constitutional issues such as his son confrontation clause issues can be forfeited if not object to on that basis follow so for that reason by harmle patterson where despite being circumstantial it was an overwhelming case and here the i'll be impeached testimony of joe pa was overwhelmingly supported by circumstantial evidence and the defendant threatening to shoot gone dead the next day that he saw her which was two days later and in fact she was in fact shot dead in the driveway the next time that she went to defend his house so it's a respect even if this were a patterson type constitutional it's something whereas if you take away the hearsay now what do you have it's a situation that there was other evidence of threats in the records that were not objection to action of those hearsay so therefore there's not a lot more prejudice  there is a recording that says basically that you know you're being monitored this is not eavesdropping but these recordings were made of the defendants voice making all kinds of comments about going in the grave and shooting other people and first one to discover the body or they might think if you did so he's holding her inside and you've got the monitors he can see the car in the driveway by inference and he's got the loud movie going harry potter can't really hear outside and he because of who she is that this that she should be disbelieved the defense declares mental state she was under great pressure there's the break up there is the fact that she's she's almost knows that her statement that only statements government officials that her testimony was true i notice is serially but in practice it may be close to that and the reason why is because  made in solemn bashed and then every first and second requirement whether the statement was quote intended to establish a particular fact and it says now is the site's part of settling which talks about whether it was intended to establish a particular fact if a degree of a higher degree of formality such as maybe the defendant was mirandized by the police not just simply talking to police and therefore could be conceivably prosecuted for making a false statement to a police officer in a case where there is not showing that there are consequences severe consequences gray davis that are similar in nature to why this should be deemed as equally solemn as as if she was simply and she was telling the cop i'm trying to make a salinity require making just simply be disregarded just because someone thought she was potentially making statements that were essentially going to be used in a trial even though she thought from her perspective to defend it was going to kill himself so what trial of prosecution and this case is not one of them and with respect to the overwhelming evidence one of the most important things didn't just walk things the defense retching in calling for a police officer when he thought maybe she was just having a seizure bear testimony against the accused just as if she's testifying in court it's a solemn statement she's over at the consequences of her solid statement for the purpose to be used in court and she was hearing testimony against the accused