previously assigned to the burglary task force will she be testifying about these other burglaries in relation to the two thousand and twelve presidential burglary which would be clear violation of the pretrial ruling or was she really talking about over burglaries that she was investigating off the temporal connection there between what was just testified to and the request to approach the bench so there are times when counsel believes that you know maybe the jury will miss it maybe it wouldn't be emphasized there were other things talked about in that same sentence so why wasn't that a reasonable trial strategy ok the first part of may answer is that the jury has no idea why she's approaching the bench they maybe could have guessed that it was something had to that his attorney told him she was aware of the motion nobody she signs with peterson's testimony was but she thought that by objective should be calling attention to the testimony and it may have made things worse why is that an why she didn't say i know him because he committed other burglaries she said i know him from the community from the area from other burglaries she didn't say he community death or burglary she said service call you know the burglar is in my area yes that is true i think it would be i don't know the area and i know that there are certain areas that are more prone to burglaries and other crimes i don't know that area i don't know where he lives i don't know whether he i could have been asking to leave the courtroom for a while unless she left the courtroom right after the sidebar one other reason could the jury think she was going to have to talk to the judge or perhaps they wouldn't know they would have knowing it do you  and if you're talking about drawing attention deficit tension i'm going to and she could approach she could imagine her objection and the judge could've told the prosecutor that point move on delay of a more questions and the prosecutor did one after peterson talked about how she knew the defendant state's version of that it's not prejudicial in this case to show presidents you have to first show that this one time is a solution that this is not a clear violation of that order because it's just because they didn't mention a particular conviction well that's true she didn't mention the conviction of her charge she said she knew him in the pro yeah she had the situation in front of her the circumstances where there but it has to be as all this law says it has to be a sale trial strategy and i think that's what this comes down to for your  it sound for her sway was really made an option against another really bad option and is that a proper way to really determine the site is it in litigation a fair trial or is it crack and the prosecutor never mentioned it i think probably because he knew and i apologise it was a male or female i don't remember right now the prosecutor didn't mention it clearly because the error was there i think the prosecutor knew that this was an error and don't emphasize it in closing argument but in fact you know in the state just argued that the prosecutor asked the question peterson made her statement that she knew him from the burglaries and service calls in the area and  her job is to investigate and the issue of the day or something of that nature and that's how and then ok and so how often do you see her how do you know it from the community from witness from calls for help from everything under the sun as a police officer clues people who were suspects around or that it's not ruling out that possibility she's talking about investigating him as a potential suspect in other burglaries and that's i'm sure what the jury video i think in some other circumstances could be overwhelming evidence in the state argue i don't think it constitutes overwhelming evidence here so we have to look at all his testimony which is unreliable and then this improper testimony from