the state court had stayed the actual running of the probation that so with was still in effect yeah and what i don't know offhand is whether the probation which was one year and again in length actually ever has started running but think that's true that he's not being contested what wealthy what happened was the statement was admitted and the intermediate court held that there was a confrontation clause violation of the previous standard of ohio the roberts ok and that the state failed the reversed the i c a only on the question of harmless error because the state had conceded in the supreme court says this when they filed their circuit issue with the why supreme court they conceded the confrontation clause violation so that was taken right well except if it's only one statement i think that the weather comes in one way or two ways it still makes a difference medic have to ask the victim about her condition if it wasn't for purposes of assessing her for purposes of medical treatment he might have in mind that he's assisting his colleague who works for the county of  i don't know why it wasn't sufficient but the state judge said it wasn't look at all of that they looked at the evidence to examine the question of harmlessness but as to i think your analysis as i understand what you're saying  they never analyzed that question and that is the question so if you just say well was it harmless then you start talking about how much evidence there was you answered the wrong question when what you need to look at is whether there's a as chancellor had actually been there as a witness as opposed to the statements that were came in of what she would have said according to the what she said to the medic court apparently thinks they apply the right standard they apply the wrong standard and you can tell they apply the wrong standard by what they analyze and they never ask the critical question which is whether there's a reasonable possibility evidence to point of might have contributed conviction and i think that's question of what actually occurred you know that's not true that doesn't rely totally on it it does rely on that but it relies also on the government's burden to the states bird in this case to prove the element of bodily injury and it relies on the state's burden to is mr welchers statement at the time that the investigator was talking to him that comes in as a quote confession unquote but in order for it to come in there has to be right now there's already a plea corroboration from other sources to grant neck that was observed apart from what the witness stand could that extra judicial statement by well been corroborated by his in court testimony would that be sufficient robbery well i don't think that's the proper analysis for this reason if you take the trial in the context of is there enough to survive the rule twenty nine motions and thereafter it wasn't him of course you know there was because the ground rationing came from the observation of the redneck and the statement to the investigator of the medical treater right the judge and then one thing and the nine one one call although maybe that's part of he the evidence shows when you read it but to but to examine what the trial judge said was the effect of the evidence on him because if the trial judge is saying this evidence is affecting my adjudication of this case then i think we have to proceed on a chapter because not only is there a reasonable possibility that the other help was affected by the evidence but we know what actually was affected by the evidence and so we we've gone beyond what's happened repl issues in terms of whether it's cumulative you focused again on that the wrong point because if you focus on whether it's cumulative which i do i take it is it another way of stating what the court is today we are understating it you then dilute the chapman standard because now you're focusing again on whether the evidence is sufficient or overwhelming or there a lot of it you know focusing on the catholic question which is can you say with certainty that the evidence that was a fire concertina violation