mr drayton lost his case at trial due to a gross miscarriage of justice the court below failed to meet bare minimum requirements surrounding the admission of evidence and plainly erred when they admitted three types of evidence first mr  air review as well as the prior drug use and with regards to the mental health history with regards to the relevance of the mental health this is subject to abuse of discretion review so regarding the evidence under rule six and nine with respect to the rep she how much non it miscible how many non admissible convictions were contained and i know some of them were miserable  it's a close call but i think this court has allowed a lot of the court to look at multiple pieces of evidence and to determine that and the cumulative this evidence affected a substantial right and so even if that still is a plain error to admit this type of evidence is completely tarnished not not it wasn't a credibility issue this was an issue of his character in opening statement opposing counsel stated that on multiple occasions that the client in was a multiple felon and then use that information to say there are admissions of mr green's bad behavior and so in opening statement opposing counsel is telegraphing to the jury that the sole purpose of this evidence is to say to the jury the he was a bad person this is bad character therefore he should not be ruled in favor of and so for those reasons this is the evidence of his entire rap sheet is clearly in from a small  must be clear on the record that the court engaged in for three pounds and we believe that this type of evidence it's unfairly prejudicial under rule for three and should not have been included the problem value as minimal this is not a case about whether or not mr drayton committed a crime for for taking a car he had already been on trial for that case this case was now about whether or not mr drayton was subject to excessive force at the hands of the police and so any relevance that this rap sheet had it is absent and not only is it has limited probity value what about schizophrenia that so with regard to schizophrenia again for the case is a quite different scenario than what we have here and gonzales it was a determining whether or not the defense had a brady claim and so and they were determining whether it was inappropriate to exclude psychiatric evidence in order to help him establish one of his brady claims and that is not at all relevant the same situation as what we have here moreover the evidence here nothing in the record suggests that his schizophrenia related to his perception of the events in question there was no inquiry on the record as to whether how his schizophrenia affected his perception at all and so to say that this evidence was being used for that i  think is inappropriate so i don't believe that his his schizophrenia was relevant i don't think consoles stands for that proposition in this set of circumstances should  drayton tried to bring in evidence of his of his physical injuries and at that time the court to a spontaneous said that unless he had an expert to establish that the physical injuries related to the injuries he allegedly suffered on involves i think if is schizophrenia was controlled then you can then yes because there's no showing another schizophrenia had any effect on his perception of of the events in question and so and that's what the only different procedural sort of sense and two and long it wasn't just the fact that he had schizophrenia you know he was a severe liar had faked suicide at several times you know this was a very it was a very egregious case where they were looking at multiple respectfully disagree i think with wrong issue of lying goes away and goes way more to perception the one there not mr durant has prior but prior criminal convictions i don't think it's appropriate to use his prior criminal convictions to show that he doesn't  good morning your honor as deputy city attorney wendy shapiro on behalf of that police scale and the city of los angeles at all your honors this is a case in which there were two very very different version of events mr green's version of events of being severely beaten and the officers version of the events where there was no beating at all so how do you square this case how does the jury determine who to believe it was a classic credibility determination and where  also admitted into the evidence mr drayton admits on the record to his prior convictions for ten fifty one as well as his prior convictions for narcotics as well as his prison priors so what so in effect it was harmless error because it wasn't a secret that mr creighton had an extensive criminal history there is no evidence in the record but the defense counsel in the one thing to admit into evidence things that are allowed  a and b and then in that same document have extraneous stuff like his arrest for murder don't you think that a jury could be prejudiced but i don't think it would be prejudiced in this i don't know that now it's speculative one way or the other but here's here's why there is so much evidence in the record separate and apart from the rap sheet the fact the speculative one way or other means the prejudicial because truckloads don't allow him speculative evidence right that's true but it's not going to be prejudicial in this case where there are so many other convictions for well that goal but the judge reinhart point a thief is not a murderer that's but but let's talk about i want to talk about schizophrenia that bothers me in this case ok in this case we don't know that his schizophrenia was not control right and so if this is control then he has the ability to perceive and the ability to testify truthfully about that which he receives which flies in the face along so why is it relevant to the trial court and why the court why dear but here is thank mr drayton zone attorney elicited the fact that he his schizophrenia was controlled and that he was no longer on medication and it goes to exhibit twenty three which is the medical inmate information that is is objected to within that document there is evidence that mr drain relied on to support his credibility in support of his texas excessive force where is it that he supports  it he has multiple times when he visits the doctors and says that he was beaten on july fifteenth he uses it to show that he sustained an injury to his grain as well as to his eye so what a talent is trying to do is pick and choose the evidence that helps them but to exclude the evidence that is relevant for impeachment and credibility and clearly is not playing error as what don't we have to be careful with using one's mental condition  basis for impeachment because basically if you extend wong out too far then in this gets a phrenic is per se unbelievable why wouldn't the respect of the weather all the schizophrenia as controlled didn't know that he will stop schizophrenia it wasn't relevant it goes to it goes to mr drains credibility he's describing a tale that is basically fairly empty so different from it i believe it was introduced through exhibit twenty three hundred introduced in opening statement didn't he didn't the then the attorney representing of those state that in opening statement she talked about his schizophrenia drug use and criminal record and i think it a yes i think that's true and i think it's done for the purpose of credibility truthfulness this case was about credibility and whose version of the events should be court asked him if he had any objections to the admission of the evidence he said no no objection drawn and then he jointly agreed to admitted into evidence he had some benefit in particular exhibit twenty three that it was precipitated by the opening statement because it was already out there then you can ignore it it was the elephant in the room but he did ask his client are you still taking medication he said i am not taking medication i am now you know i'm not mad at the my doctor's recommendation so he cleaned it up to say but so that's a very high standard and there was that pretrial conference where both i stipulated exhibits i don't know what happened at the pretty confident i do know that the exhibit let's was a joint exhibit list in which exhibit twenty three was jointly agreed to  so going back to the harmless error of this this was invited error there was evidence in the oh i see my time is going up if i may continue this was a case where he was not tonight a substantial right it was case of who to believe mr drayton came up with a story that was very very hard to believe that he was helping clear a blocked intersection at two in the morning in downtown los angeles nobody really needed is up to two o'clock in the morning that was so implicitly unbelievable that it did jury could use that alone to believe that his tail was incredible in addition he wasn't helping he had prior convictions i think the evidence  also his rap sheet was used in the closing argument by his counsel to try to appeal to shore up his credibility so this is kind of a situation of classic invited or you can't pick and choose the evidence that you want when you try to take advantage of it in for that i would testimony of two versions of events and one there is a credibility determination and the the primary evidence is two different sets of testimony about the same advance using character evidence to undermine that that credibility is inappropriate and it it wasn't just the fact that they were questioning mr drake and the credibility they were questioning his character and when they tarnished his character the point that they did by using his rap sheet that have an arrest for murder on that by using schizophrenia with no information saying that the schizophrenia affected his perception this wasn't just a credibility determination and they made that very clear and opening statement they called him this his bad behavior it was very clear that this was not used for credibility purposes this was used to simply tarnish green's character such that that they would ask the jury to rule soley on their biases based on the character that he had this also was not invited error you know and in his closing statement trial  and i know that they were stipulated to prior to trial but regardless that's not the question before the court here is whether notwithstanding the stipulation and this evidence it was plain error to have this evidence and the  his credibility and fact he was trying to say opposing counsel used your rabbit mr britain's rap sheet to say that he was a bad person but that's irrelevant so he wasn't trying to use it as an for an affirmative evidence he was trying to rehabilitate what opposing counsel has already done and so because again we believe that his evidence of his entire actually evidence of his prior drug use and evidence of his mental illness