cross examination the statements at issue in this case are testimonial statements because they were statements made under circumstances that would a dead end jacked if witnesses would re y believe the later but didn't someone who was on the broadcast right is what you're talking about and the yellow shirt on the broadcast but later didn't another agent come in and testify that the yellow shirt your honor there was that was in court yes there was one one agent who testified that he had a maybe five second view of the person that was driving the car and he was wearing a yellow shirt but that testimony by the in court declaring was clearly bolstered by the fact that he had to declare that agent garrett referred back to the make a difference because i think that they specifically rely throughout this throughout this trial about the person who saw the agent who had the killer view well i guess how did it affect the outcome of the trial let's assume that we buy everything about your argument to the point of you know that it that it was testimonial and but how did it affect the outcome because the linchpin of the government's case was first one matter if it might have mattered if there was any more specific identification because the second guy you know barely saw him but he saw him enough to notice those two things so what difference does it make that one one calls which were admitted under an excited utterance one was there well i could be wrong but i am sure that both of those cases involved nine one one call crawford as being testimonial there's also a temporal component to it if you will where the declarant because there are observing something more or less that's happening or just after it recently happened  you go back to their subjective intent in making the statement in other words to do they intend to preserve the testimony or are they just expressing something as it's happening either to ask for help or just  the declarant and just to say that any statement that is to you tory statement given to law enforcement should be considered testimonial and an accusatory statement would be a statement that describes a you're objecting on different grounds now right well i think there's different standards to prove but i think both statements are testimony you know i think what you want when you when you object to the statement that you say you pursue her what grounds to do you object on even if the disputed testimony was improperly admitted the identical result would have been reached let's back up for me there would be little point in us trying to find a testimony to think the supreme court heard arguments testimony and exception tayshaun excuse me i think they were both nine one one cases i believe they were i'm not certain again i'm not certain about that but i believe that they were both one cases and the courts that have looked at nine one one have almost without exception held that the excited utterances do in fact apply when are in fact they are in fact not testifying almost across the board and many of those are state cases as well but changed the shirt at some point i was a little surprised frank and there was a sufficiency of the f s a but there wasn't one but it certainly wasn't the strongest case in the world because nobody ever claimed to recognize this guy as such there was in fact the last officer that testif molina the person who actually stopped the defendant testified that that was in fact the person that he had stopped on that day that's different i understand that but that but by that point the truck was empty at that point the person driving  of the parking lot it's observed over the air when it in fact is parked in the parking lot by d h and they know the car they know the location is not an issue about that it's observed though from the air and on the ground there was testimony that it didn't stop no one entered or  it the vehicle as it until it in fact reached the stache house where it pulls in again there's testimony that a green truck pulls up the marines but when they stop the driver of the green truck they say that's not the guy when the sun fire again leaves the car the car that had originally the lo well specifically again the fact that demonstrate the defendant's guilt are that when it was a controlled delivery there was d n a had obtained the marijuana they knew the car they knew the license plate they knew the making of the model they knew where it was going it was in fact livered by an undercover agent agency and koby testifies on direct evidence that he witnessed the person with the yellow shirt writing it be it will that was in fact his testimony he's the agent that's across the street in a supermarket parking lot there was nothing that  though who says wait a minute that's the guy that drew and that's the guy that drove it from the hospital you need to stop him and in fact that's when the vehicle stopped and that individual is in fact identified they didn't want to stop the vehicle and by her on the radio he was cross examined devout what he did not specifically about whether or not his perceptions were influenced by what he heard on the radio again it's a matter of seconds there's a present when the vehicle was in fact pulled over and after it left the house well if this was after crawford was the initial objection sufficient to preserve that for harmless error because you can't keep thinking of better objections when the first one doesn't work the purpose of than objection is to put every one a notice of what the problem is so that the trial court can either you know can address that but then you can't you can't say well objection hearsay and then later say objection relevance on appeal i think the court is writing that may very well make this a plane make that first objection is subject to a pla analysis as well even though with the i guess we start at the top and lower the standard even under a harmless error analysis though still there sufficient more than sufficient evidence to show to specifically excluded as the person who drove the car to the house they watch it all day and they watch it all night  so that we're testified about when he was in fact stopped in the vehicle the he told the agent that he told the excuse me the department of public safety officer well i'm coming from this ng a relative at the north end of the hospital made us go in the only other statements would be the only other evidence involved in this case and there was not essentially there was no contradictory evidence presented on behalf of the defense there was nothing that was presented that contradicted any of the government's in fact statements there was no evidence regarding any other individuals who would enter or exit at the cock the either the car or the house the agents were very clear about that and again they watched it for a long period of time the issues in crawford though based on all of that your honor we would find that it's not formalized testimony it's not because jodi it's not interrogation by a law enforcement and although we've tried to give the court as good an examination as we possibly can of the law that's currently out there it may be a better