commit suicide his story that i wasn't that she died because she was attempting commit suicide it was that they were had a struggle and fell into this well and so forth so if you mean immediately as of that time i don't think that's right if you mean more generally i understand the relevance but i think there's a difference that it actually was happening what would happen if they were arguing she wanted to commit suicide maybe talking about this for a couple days at this point in time and talking about meeting suicide by your part of this and this is what that argument was about on the side of the spot she wanted him to help her kill her and he didn't want to do it and she slapped him a few times and then on the third slap she he grabbed her and that's when they sell them to the spa which she apparently had a heart attack which two doctors for the defense had testified that this was clearly possible and actually didn't kill her and then after she died she got out of the spa and was thinking about the conversations that they had that she wanted to she didn't she didn't want to look like she killed herself but she wanted to make it look like somebody came out of the hills and greater and to make it look like a sex crime than also for a dog to die and i found a different verdict but when you look at the record they did fill very for five days and he asked for a read back of his statements to investigators taylor and also they want to hear his account of what happened offer his explanation or his defense he told the jury looking in next to tying her up but you can't explain it to you know how she was killed you can't offer you that explanation and the jury was clearly searching for for any  suicide that was the argument and he didn't really feel just right and he refused and when he was first arrested he explains all to the to the to the police and what i find striking is that he told the police right away that the victim told him that she tried to kill herself in the past by injecting bleach into her veins and i think it would have pressed upon the jury because there's no way you could have known that this was documented medical evidence evidence should have been admitted they did join and then after this they talk about how it wasn't relevant at first but then it became relevant because and this is the part that's driven me his testimony this flat out those are unless he was given some basis to supplement because there's no way to connect up what was discovered with her being tied up in the dog being tied up with what he says unless in some way you can offer some outside corroboration to the california court of appeal appears to come to conclusion the evidence should have been admitted and then in a fairly brief fashion as but is not prejudicial it's harmless error because nobody could have believed what he said anyway he was his credibility was impeached five ways to sunday if you focus so much attention on that part you mentioned how long the jury was out but it seems to me that's really the piece the whole  your mission is tonight is to some part of the evidence doesn't turn every case your constitutional one so it's not simply me as i don't it's quite as simple as say he was and i the opportunity presented to the fans you can reach a point where it becomes an attitudinal i understand your argument notice but it didn't go before the jury tried to get in before the jury anything anything that had to do with her mental health anything to do with her suicide tendencies any statements that had to do with her attempts to  now he didn't he went back to los angeles and she was became depressed he said he wanted he was confused he felt somewhat responsible he was there when she died and that's why he came that because he he didn't think he killed her which he was present when she the attorney general on behalf of respondent it would be our position that there was no error in this case that the trial court in this particular case carefully evaluated the evidence and did what it was supposed to case by saying the evidence should have been excluded because by the end of this decision the court of appeals as it should have come in but it's harmless here well i don't think there's any point in arguing whether it should have come in any more based on that the california court of appeals  this particular evidence only went to a facet of his defense it was to explain the many multiple versions of the defendant's testimony as to how or versions as to how the victim died initially this was five hours of videotape statements with the police initially he denied any involvement he created a very intricate alibi as to why he went to los angeles where he stayed with he did after he was presented with additional evidence he didn't state it in one point i killed or i guess i'm going to go to prison then he then he talked about the fact well we argued it was it we struggled we fell and it was an accident then he claimed it was a heart attack so then we had the version that was presented to the trial to the trial court and to the jury it was an accident slash heart attack another which we accidentally fell into the spa and she died of an a heart attack while she was in the water the problem that he has with that is that one of the medical examiners for the prosecution testified that the victim was still still alive when her hands were tied this of course poses a very difficult problem for the defendant where is where is there a factual finding where the order of appeal i excuse me well know that the court of appeal can rely on the evidence that was presented by the expert testimony by the doctor by the prosecution's prosecution they can't pick and choose the evidence i mean there was evidence from other doctors that did not is a term of art that means something don't tell the court that there's a factual finding by the court of appeal if there's not a factual finding that or to feel you can study the court of your side of evidence you can point to the evidence but don't try to tell me there's a factual find it your honor misspoke and i apologize for that i didn't mean to infer that what i was relying on was the experts testimony that was presented in the prosecution's case and that was a reporter's transcript for fifty seven fifty nine and five ten which is  the court of appeal refers to it in that statement of facts your honor and that is part of the excerpts of record that were provided to the court by appellant and so that poses quite a problem for the defendants the auto sy report the autopsy report was inconclusive as to whether she died of a cardiac event or not in other words it could not be because of the level of decomposition of the body the body had been in the water for about six days  was it was not possible for the for the for the from the autopsy report to determine whether in fashion it died of a heart attack now the defendant did present evidence that that was a conceivable event but it was not conclusively established one way or the other event when she drowned williams's expert on the other hand could not eliminate a corner office that is the cause of death and based on williams description of her death one applying that you probably died of such an occurrence now the court of appeal recites the defendant's evidence too and i  characterize that as a finding that seems to be all that's going on here is a recitation of the evidence to want to get back to the discussion of of why this is a harmless error i don't see very much identified in the way of specifics other than quote williams credibility was impeached at trial in more ways than this court can count just frankly pretty compelling because you go through the evidence you gave lots of different stories but i don't see anything here that points to medical evidence as saying this case must have come out this this is not a situation where he never got an opportunity to present a defense he was precluded from presenting facets of his defense to explain some very bizarre behavior when he claimed that the victim died of an accident and then he goes and ties the victim's hands he wanted to present an explanation to the jury why he did that however when we if we only were to look at it in a very narrow context perhaps then it would become somewhat relevant but when we look at it in an overall context in terms of evidence in this case and particularly because they were focusing on the defendant's statements and it took five hours at least five hours to go over the videotape transcripts and videotapes that's why it took so long i mean in other words there was a lot of evidence for the jury to consider and the question in determining whether it's harmless error is whether this piece of evidence this explanation would have changed the jury's outlook or decision that the defendant was guilty either they were going to accept which they did the prosecution's theory a first degree murder that he intended to kill her or they were going to accept that it was accidental in other words that he really didn't have any real he didn't have any fault or intent to kill her and that she died of a heart attack and if she died of a heart attack then he's not guilty and that was the evidence that he produced it wasn't one of the judges say when the suicide note was offered the judge didn't find it to be relevant and i think when you say same thing well he just didn't find a direction to say no no they there was this was part of a long discussion in limiting or out of the presence of the jury to discuss the various points of the trial and at the time that the note was offered the court did consider it and i think it's it's wrong to characterize this as a service i note it's attachment one of the materials provided by appellant if we look at it it hardly sounds like a suicide note it was written a month before which and again it's not relevant she died a month later but there's three items c o deep which i guess cash on delivery to marry off which may refer to marriott hotels and three love in the afternoon that certainly doesn't sound like somebody who is willing to kill themselves if they're already planning to to have love in the afternoon and obviously this woman was sixty three years old she was a widow she had been befriended by the defendant who was thirty seven years old they had been living together for about two months he had drained just about all her bank accounts you know i understand a lot but you know what bothers me is if i were a juror let's get this case and one of the principal was present at this time the first thing that would come to my minds is your well wait a minute why why would somebody who didn't murder tire up and he was not able to ever explain why but i think if you look in the context of it his his his theory of defense at trial with that it was an accident and that she died of an out of a heart attack and so how  and he was unable to explain and assuming that you were able to explain it assuming that the jury had heard this evidence then at that point that the court would have had to allow not only over six or eight witnesses to testify out more than one or two well that's not true your honor because the prosecution then would have a right to rebut that evidence and i think one of the points that was made earlier was that every time she had indicated she wanted to die that's not true her past suicide attempts she said three things one i really i knew i was going to die had some a nurse in the pills would kill me until i called my sister in law because she didn't want to die and each time after she took the pill she said she didn't want to die so the prosecution would have been able to present evidence that this particular manner of death is so inconsistent with the prior types of suicide which involve alcohol and pills and at each time of those times are you hearing that that she died of suicide arguing this is the explanation i've got for this bizarre situation where she's found tied up and her dogs tied up and he was unable to prevent that at all but in order to that would have changed the jury's mind about its decision to find the defendant guilty of murder found the error harmless so while they may have been relevant the second portion of its testing error then is to determine whether it had injur factor substantial interest effect on the jury's verdict and in order to assess that we look at all the evidence that was presented by the defendant and the prosecution in this case and even at this evidence to come in about the suicide note about the fact that they had this allegedly because part of the trial court's analysis was that it was unreliable he's the only one who talked about this this self serving statement that there had been discussion of a suicide a few days before but even if that were to be allowed in is there a reasonable possibility the jury would have reached a different verdict in light of the other compelling evidence showing that the defendant stories were bizarre and unreliable and not credible in that he was impeached the answer is absolutely no but you never know never but that's not have influenced the jury started in this case thank you thank you very much medical documented proof that she did try to do this i think that's critical and i think the jury would let's look at that specific point and say she's telling of the police officer right when he gets arrested that she tried to kill herself by injecting leach i mean how would you know that that was actually true if it wasn't true and i think i would bolster his credibility and the mental health of this is i'd have this would have had a second the jury's verdict exposed the sense they were looking for a reason they were searching for a reason as to