consideration yet it's absolutely relevant and i have the courts make clear though whether something is considered testimonial or not in testimonial is highly can context oriented so looking at this case this happened in an ambulance to a paramedic on the way to the hospital it's no longer at the scene this lends more towards if being a testimonial statement not something that is given at the scene to deal with an ongoing emergency if we want we can contrast it with other large does not necessarily mean the entire time someone is that lives at there's an ongoing emergency you still need to look at the details of what's happening you need to look at that as a clear night what is this famously thinking about when he's making these statements what is a beautiful person in that position to think is he thinking that by giving these answers if he laying if he's saying something that would go towards the prosecution of whoever whomever had committed this offense so if you look at the facts of this case how ins has already been were that mr collins was lying on his back in the rear garden of seventy one thirty one south champlain when he spoke with the paramedic senate and that senate was before he got into the ambulance spell the time that he was responding to us of those questions to my understanding of the facts and by the time the paramedics arrived at the scene there are already fire trucks there there are some police officers and they're loading ho into the ambulance and during the ride to the ambulance while they're loading them up one of the paramedics is going to the front the other one's taking care of collins that's when these questions begin to happen what happened who did this what was it about those kinds of questions so the seams are ready been secured by officers and other fire trucks and that kind of nature so what that's happening now is he's being transferred to the hospital he's been made aware that he's no longer going to make it and so he's asking the he's being asked these questions and he understands or any of us no person would understand by answering these questions he's trying to pinpoint who did this to him so this person can be prosecuted and he is a person would think that especially since when you look at these kinds of questions he's complaining where this person is and he's not seeking aid he already terms of taking care of them i wouldn't say that you know knowing the reason for the shooting is necessary to the paramedics that's not dealing with the ongoing emergency of what they're dealing with they're there to take care of him these are the kinds of questions that a police officer would ask in terms of trying to find out facts that you would then establish a trial in order to prosecute someone these are clearly testimonial statements and any person's intolerance of situation would understand that this is what the question is are going towards and i roll you back a little bit just from the arguments that are being made today and in the prius you appear to not dispute these statements are admissible in the first place statements are inadmissible both because they are not subject to cross examination they violate the confrontation clause and to just arguing generally a dying declaration is by their very nature violate crawford and their understanding of what the confrontation c historically have been the exception under which they would have been allowed in but i think in the context of crawford and it's progeny since then the court makes clear that these kinds of testimonial statements if they're not subject to cross examination are simply inadmissible because they be quires the need you need confrontation you need to ability to cross examine and we simply just can't make an exception for historical purposes when the court has made clear that reliability of these testimonial statements are of the utmost whether or not this exception can still survive profit analysis and so while it hasn't well the courts and said you know maybe there's a historical exception the u s supreme court has specifically left open the possibility that you know it just would not isn't that then therefore we're liable based on the fact that he knew he was going to be dying i don't know that that is an assumption that we can make yes it's something to consider that he knew he was at death's door but justice scalia makes the point in bryant by saying you know the fact that you know you're going to die that probably makes it so what you want to do is you could have any you reasons to say these things but what you want to do is to prosecute someone and if you're going to be presenting evidence to prosecute someone it needs to be subject to cross examination in order to polling that i think is undeniably testimony to what does that have to do with an ongoing emergency but even aside from that those specific kinds of answers and questions posed to things you would want to prove cases from an armed robbery that had happened months before he then looked at the cases and he said that the cases from both cases matched you for that to do you have the testimony you had pressed the issue of whether or not mr evidence is not generally accepted back in two thousand and nine the national research council report concluded that the validity of two american firearms analysis has not been fully demonstrate this committee was made up of members case because these studies and challenges across the country that still marking firearms now as this shows that this is new and novel it's a new and novel science because scientists are arguing these days that you know  hundred thirty to constantly be challenged we've had other cases in the state with a h t n testing where things that used to be admissible things that used to be deemed reliable no longer are because more modern current challenges and shown that maybe particular probably in this case is that the trial judge didn't even have any kind of hearing other than saying you know what i think that experts are just looking at stuff and that's not a scientific process so fried doesn't even apply there was no limit the scope of the limit of it but on the one hand the he let me do it without fully understanding all the different variables he didn't like i said you can talk about peer review or rates of error he just said well you can't tell them it's a science and even with that limitation peter byrne instead testified as to scientific principles and the problem with saying that you just can't say it's a science it still leaves the impression with the jury that something is science that means it's truth that means that fact and then the state goes on in the closing arguments to argue well you know because i only write things and show that he committed this offense because he shot here and he sat there and up and the you know the crutches match then clearly he is the person who committed this offense nothing about what the trial judge and done in terms of limiting this testimony signal to the jury in any kind of way that what these experts were saying were in fact the truth or there was a question about the real reliability of the so called co about the reliability of this kind of evidence but even sagarin doesn't support the state's argument as much as it would seem from their brief severin specifically noted that we can't just rely on past case law to say that something's reliable they still said that this kind of evidence required a quote unquote exhaustive hearing there needs to be a foundation laid as to reliability so correct and specific and clear limitations can be laid for what kind of evidence can be brought in and what can be explained to the jury this was not done in that respect at all in this case the judge just that it's not a science friday and like so because so much can firearms evidence is not generally accepted i would tell you that this evidence should have been excluded looking back to see what did confront witnesses me and seven hundred eighty seven and proffer did not involve a dying declaration however as mentioned earlier but no number six points out supposedly that common law in seven hundred eighty seven dying declarations were admissible and reliable and he goes on to say in the footnote it is eight in it was really the only exception existing at common law and so the question of whether it's testimony or not maybe maybe move because it was a special exception the second district in gilmore in this court in two thousand i rate him both found that based on that footnote that the confrontation cla to police officers and the court in that case found it to be a non testimonial situation this case is a clear dying declaration as defenses conceded today although at trial they this course ring graham and the other court's ruling in gilmore have meaning then we never get to the testimonial issue and again if we were to get the testimony issue which i don't think we should the fact that in brian we have statements to police officers and those are ok here we have statements to paramedics and this is an interesting statement because what happened here your honor that's where the statement took place it's true that you originally the beginning of the statement takes place when the coherent which is an important factor in a dying declaration the statements about who did this and where it happened both did take place in the ambulance cell there were two witnesses to that statement they're both paramedics they're not police officers their primary function is to give  to this man of the paramedic the senate was very honest he said that the man looked at me i looked at him he was bleeding all over i've done thousands of gunshot paces he asked me and i'm going to die and i told him the truth he said son i'm afraid you're go and at that point they talked about you know do you want to tell anybody anything and i bet part was excluded from trial i don't think it should have been but it was excluded from from the from the trial but in them in the motion the paramedic did say that the man you know i  just the same i mean there is a man out there with a gun who's just shot somebody awful i'm frustrated i think the emergency situations the same but again i don't think we have to get there because again in bryant it was not a dying declaration now the man did emergency situation is certainly still present so so basically argument is that it is not covered by the offer because of that exception because in back in seventy seven this exception existed and even if it were it would be that the situation in bryant with two police officers and not a dying declaration is is less strong than the situation here where we have a dying declaration plus a statement and two paramedics at the place not desist have the authority to police it's hard to say that the police aren't investigating at all times and in my other hand paramedics their primary duty is not to invest it you know they've they were asking several things including who can we tell because hundred thirty in the fisher case no relation but the court went through the testimony at length of expert testified in that case and it mirrors strikingly what the expert in this case the background  you can either have a fry hearing or you can rely on well established judicial principles making the case making the scientific evidence admissible which is exactly what happened here this isn't like the gaze test where there'd been no court that deal with that is through cross examination or putting your own experts on both of which were available in this case defense counsel did early cross examine or as much as they wanted to the experts are you aware of the study oh you're the criticism the study one of the witnesses add credit but i haven't read it in depth they were perfectly free to put any body on they wanted to attack the validity interestingly though even in their brief they've admitted that well the theory behind this is still ok we just don't know yet and test that enough discussed all of these factors now that it's nineteen thirty but if i was nineteen twenty three so now to the court in fisher did not apply for a i they didn't but they were aware fry you know fried been around for seven years at that experts say but they let the evidence in and they let the other side cross examine on that and severn collects all that and says you know there's really no reason to have been more fright or ngs they are or dobber hearings this issue is settled most cases so the defendant got the relief that is available under illinois law which is the ability to cross down the nation and head to head the defendant wanted to put on an expert they put it put on experts and member of a lot of these cases the defense uses this evidence to their advantage and this is opinion that's not a scientific opinion still an expert opinion but a man of a scientific so whether you call it art or science and that's a little the judge is a little weird when the judge said well you're only comparing things well a lot of science is comparison just a few quick comments going to the competition council argues that you know we shouldn't even reach the testimony own nature of these statements because during decorations just simply something different it just doesn't apply  doesn't apply to it and he says specifically because the footnote says that something different the footnote is not specific in that way it leaves open it questions would dying declarations still qualify post crockery that's something that the court has not it just simply cannot be squared dying declaration cannot be squared with what we now understand the confrontation clause in the sixth amendment to require and then moving to the ongoing emergency counsel argues well you know there's a perpetrator out there and so they need to catch this person but the court and bryant also recognize that you know if there's something about what the declarant is saying that signifies that this is a very specific act then this is a private and there's no ongoing emergency because how and says that this person shot me because i he said i stole his gun there's no threat to other people there aren't other people who have stolen this time this is very specific these are statements made of testimonial because  and firearms is just acceptable science just like living in a vacuum we know there's been advances in technology and science since then the scientific community has questioned whether or not this is to be liable science and the  danger here is that we all know juries can hear scientists are experts and they hear what they say they sound knowledgeable they take what they say to be the truth and that's the danger here because the experts are testify this is match were fired here fired here it's the same person that just wants a crew the states generally was much weaker case there's no eyewitnesses to say that robinson was the perpetrator without the firearms evidence there is no connecting in the sense that they have training but the problem is that the courts and in turn the jury doesn't really understand the limitations of how reliable their ultimate conclusions are they don't know whether or not the scientific community excepts this training or if they that the methodology is what they say it shows or if the premises are i right or if you can even say that you know just because if you fire from one gun it will leave different marks all the time and it will tell you specifically to  laypeople and they're just handicapped in terms of being able to truly gauge how much credit they should give that this kind of testimony thank you thank you will take the matter under is