one of the most often publicized cases so i understand where we're coming from and i think the court can appreciate that but in my opinion the court in this case sabotaged a fair trial by letting into evidence things that clearly should never have been admitted that took the jury's attention completely away from the the merits of the case and i speak to the merits of the case as being completely captured on videotape i don't know how a jury could have avoided that information except under the circumstances that this appeal presents we we did our best to correct it mitigate what was going on in the trial but it was a losing that those kinds of things don't come in that i expected the defense to know and i expect the court to be understanding of that as well and you don't make it in let me motionless you have a unique set of circumstances that happens and that's what the enemies are for but when you have the defense making it in a mini using the identical law that i would have used in a motion of my own they know what they can't do and i know what the what can't come in so what's the point so i objected would you well sometimes you objected and sometimes it didn't would you agree with me that the kidnapping or else was probably the most prejudicial from your client's point of view absolutely and then there was no contemporaneous objection well i thought the objections that i had been making all along i didn't want to draw fire from the court i mean i said that stuff shouldn't come in and i had pointed out it's a continuing objection which i felt that i suppose should record you you would have a problem with the  way and my memory of it was different but be that as it may i tried to correct what i thought was extremely prejudicial let me turn to another point that has to do with a related matter and that's the  court to allow schill the officers really on against evidence of a code of silence i mean we live in a world today where not everybody knows what a code of silence and law enforcement is but those of us who practice in the area do in jersey who are the ones who ought to know or be educated about what that is and how it plays out in a case like ours where there was ample i mean abundant evidence of how officers were not telling the truth about one another's behavior or their own as demonstrated by the videotape which spoke for itself and that the court shielded these officers from that kind of evidence and frankly its credibility evidence that in a case where its credibility is pivotal ought to have been allowed and that that denial was prejudicial because you what do you think the videotape shows that's so damning because i watched it all i've heard you now say twice and you said it in your brief that in fact the preview you gave in your brief may be so anxious to see the video that i was sort of underwhelmed when i actually watched it so what is it that so egregious that occurred on the video in your view well two things that really very important as and they relate to the malicious prosecution accusations officer meant to second officer sergeant to second sergeant genom both maintain that sartoris spat and to fix face on that stair well inside what you see on the take the videotape absolutely refutes that i disagree there is definitely a very distinct place where it looks like he's sort of going like that right in their face no i don't you can't see the spit come out i can't grant you that but it's certainly consistent with the officers version of it that says i don't see it that way i've seen that thing two hundred times studied it w i did my best to understand what was in it and i felt i felt secure in the fact that at least this that allegation that we were able to prove it in the criminal criminal case verdict demonstrated that we defended in the criminal case which the trial judge took away from the jury and acquitted him on that and then third was the was the allegation to force one of the things that's most profoundly evident on that is yes they threw him against the wall they deny that they've done it he had the injuries to prove it they threw him against the gate at the bottom they had the blood in the physical evidence at the bottom to prove it and the and i my view the videotape refutes those allegations in their entirety you know would that was the civil side of our case and the excessive force defense in the underlying criminal case that's why i think the evidence in the in the videotape is so singularly probative of all of these matters you and i can agree on inter disagree on but that doesn't really address what we hear about i think that given the reasonable interpretations between yourself and myself but jury should have been focusing on that instead of the character of the pla just put my cards on the table for you i mean i agree with you completely on the inadmissibility of a lot of the arrests and the conviction misdemeanor conviction that absolutely should not have come in and i was shocked to see that it did come in so  i understand what you're saying about i don't follow emotional women in because it seemed obvious but the defendants nonetheless argue that any error in admitting that evidence was harmless and that's why i say the video maybe had been more compelling perhaps you have a stronger argument and then the other thing to mary with that is that your client did admit i think on cross examination that he actually lied under oath during his deposition i hope that you could address that because obviously that might do or for any harm to his credibility that the admission of this other  well i did speak to about it in the briefs and the point is that he made that statement and that you know you're the lawyer you deal with it and my effort to try to deal with it was thwarted by the trial court and as you may recall from the record when tried to question him about that testimony the admission that he made a false statement in his deposition that he actually remembered something that he said he didn't i wanted to fix it i wanted to cure it and the judge did would allow me to i mean that's where i was prejudiced i could have i could have mitigated that but i was barred from doing it and that hurt us too lastly i want to talk about the rule fifty a motion that had been denied the river to be on the issue of the on allegedly unlocked i was nobody refuted any of that at the trial and i think i deserve the real fifty a motion on that on that point i think the law supports me i don't know what else i can tell you about that i'm going to reserve what i've got left on the clock here from the fans l that was necessary for the jury to find the players favor i think is is nonsense the video has to be narrated and on that that that narration of course depends upon the witnesses and the witnesses credibility their perception of the matter is within the privacy of the jury the jury looked at that video some fifty times you all did it and he looked at it in slow motion real time altercation at the bottom of the stairs was another whether there was excessive force used by deputy a you when he was holding a pellet against the wall he said using the wall that more or less as that he said he was holding the bag and in the bottom of the stairs if the appellate contended that he was attacked by the officers they say no that what he did was try to break away and what he did his issue of the false arrest again that has to be narrated first thing he said to deputy and the two said when she approached him on the stairway was that suspected that he was line and that because they'd seen the mother they'd already interviewed some of the witnesses and knew it was a male that fit his description that was driving the vehicle was a violation of the code section those those are the aspects of the claim that another staff has by watching the video so so why though then then from from that admission it seems to me you'd have to agree that credibility was one of the central issues that the jury was called upon to resolve here and i have to tell you i don't see any basis on which the evidence of his arrests and i guess it was maybe a misdemeanor conviction i don't see that as having been admissible here occasions but you don't stop there you not only got into the nature of the routes like kidnapping for example then you got into the facts of some of the around us so what would be your possible good faith basis for going as far as you did in my view assassinating the character of mr centaury what your good faith basis for doing that well the thing that i was trying to address that i want to raise was really that the the emotional content of the prior acts that he was involved in that he was saying he was having these type of emotional distress is as a result only of this incident he had a lot of incidences that were highly emotional very charged none of wh few circuit cases the nelson case from the seventh circuit and the a smethurst the city of baltimore case from the four circuit you haven't had a response to respond to those those cases as i read likely would hold that it's not admissible that none of what you did was admissible for your your justification of showing his emotional distress so responded those tickets was it enough that is that the notion they said that the court said that when when that claim is natural in this case it was only thirty minutes of emotional distress that the appellate in that case was complaining of then you would have a basis to admit the prior the impression that he tried to give the jury this testimony was that he had never really had any any issues before and this was the main issue of his life better result that him having these emotional distress is not just wasn't true that wasn't true but you can and so for that reason we raise those issues but we split the of the trial was for four and a half days we raised all these other issues to and establish all of these issues about mr satoris conduct in the you make two important points number one is undisputed at the outset of the case that mr starr torrie if he committed any offense at all with leaving the scene of an accident he was never arrested for that book for that card for that surprisingly for that reason there's never been a little more now i mean he got his mother to lie to the police well actually i don't know if he got his mother  more than just run away well how to handle the mother's case i was there turning on that one too and the record in ours there was no evidence that he put her up to that i think she volunteered as a mom and then ult on him was what they were trying to deal with and everything else didn't matter but the mark to my point there was no claim for false arrest as we all know this probably cause for an arrest for any crime under the devon plec rule we couldn't possibly prevail on a claim for false arrest that the rule is different animal process and probably cost for each count has to stand up and that's why we play the malicious prosecution because by that time you know the probable cause that got him seized in the first place uncontroverted second to the issue of prejudice if the evidence had only been what mr ravi has now told you without the introduction of th evidence that also got in i have no argument let the jury decide if mr sartori is not to be credible in light of what everything else in the case in the absence of this extremely damaging his girl this information that in my view so powerful kept the jury way from everything he was an unworthy person they were not going to treat him fairly they certainly were going to not be objective in the determination of his claims and the admission of things that should never be gotten