but the bottom line is we don't entirely know exactly what the evidence would have been because counsel was not allowed to make an offer of proof and that is part of the error that the court needed in this case  it where the proposed witness is actually available to testify that the preferred procedure for preserving the record is to allow that witness to actually give the substance of what their testimony would be w garcia with bipolar disorder on his basis for that diagnosis that presumably whatever then available had dr chris heinz or been allowed to convey to the court the substance of his proposed testimony including his proof to make this ruling if you wanted more time to present all this stuff you needed to make it more clear before we started the trial so defense counsel didn't make an attempt and it's important i think to look at how this conversation started  initially what happened was defense counsel attempted to call officer sheldon to the stand and the state objected to the relevance of officer sheldon's testimony it was through this conversation about whether officer sheldon would be allowed to testify that he got into the larger issue of back mr garcia had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder as a result of his behavior in the hours following his arrest he was taken to the emergency room at mercy center specifically for a admissibility of officer sheldon's testimony and sort of you know through that discussion the court made clear that nothing about mr darcy is bipolar disorder diagnosis or any of his behavior that led to him being taken to the emergency room that day was going to be admitted and it was at that point defense counsel said ok i would like to make this offer proof and with regard to all of my other witnesses and the court declined to hear that offer well let's assume that that city are not alone at all from who from at that point in time of questioning him as to all of his qualifications and the court could and then make a determination appu either this person is qualified or not qualified to make these determinations and offer any testimony about what they need sure of this mental illness that she also may not have personally known why exactly dr chris i don't need his diagnosis what he observed or what led him to this conclusion because she's not a doctor i'm so she needed to or what the diagnosis and the symptoms of that diagnosis was intended to prove was causing and what cause mr garcia to be incapable of thinking and acting with ordinary care and are driving safely at the time of his arrest so it goes to the causation was it alcohol was it a mental illness was it something else entirely a combination of the two that was a question of fact for the jury to decide and they needed to hear both sides of the case in order to make that determination and by analogy it's similar to cases in which defense counsel present expert testimony regarding my diabetic condition that it defined in my half of that person is suffering from hypoglycemia hypoglycemic shock at the time of her driving a lot of the symptoms that they might exhibit at the time that they're pulled over on suspicion of dui are interpreted by the police as an addition of intoxication but the expert testimony of a doctor can have provided the jury with a reasonable alternative explanation as you because it was impaired driving namely that he was impaired by his mental illness rather than by alcohol consumption and i also think it's important you know this is not a reasonable doubt sufficiency of the evidence argument after hearing all the testimony of the defense witnesses the jury would have been free to conclude that mr garcia was impaired by only his mental illness by a combination of his mental illness and alcohol consumption or only by alcohol consumption the point is that they did not get to hear both sides they didn't get to hear the evidence that there may have been another explanation for why she was impaired and driving in that state i don't think this is bipolar condition was involved in the condition and if it was certainly defense counsel in that offer enough proof enough evidence that the behavior was observed at the time stop and that he continued for twelve thirteen fourteen hours later as you indicated well me and the time when the outcome would have been dissipated from the system yes you're aware but go live where you have bipolar disorder but certainly when you have drank too much that does happen and there were so many other green the way he drove it was directed twice the speed not the victim was intoxicated or was under the influence of drugs and so what i mean no it isn't the issue is that when your taxes paid if if you don't take a blood test you don't have  i have no all because if he didn't then it doesn't make any difference because used his testimony would have related to how long if ever this not there's evidence to indicate that at the time of the arrest he was bipolar and or intoxicated you are conflating the two defenses or the two arguments by talking about is too remote for purposes of proving intoxication and it seems like you're there for same error go the expert testimony about it were behavior can't be used or can't be presented is the smell of alcohol  court do you think it might have helped us but it certainly helped us yes it would have given us the opportunity to determine whether or not there was a reasonable difference the money could raise this circumstantial evidence does not necessarily lead to that conclusion and this rehearsal was intoxicated a person can drink alcohol and have alcohol in his presence without any intoxicated the circumstantial evidence of alcohol consumption bipolar disorder as well and that's the real issue here that there was no evidence presented to counter the state's theory that that was all indicia of intoxication as opposed to something else on in addition to the cour