before i talk about each issue in turn i want to speak more broadly about what happened at trial the actions of the court and counsel limited denise's ability to present a defense the point where she was not able to properly defend herself the state's evidence primarily relied on in print says from the fact that she took certain drugs certain times to the fact that she was incapable of driving there really wasn't any direct evidence that those drugs affect on her what portion of the point where she was incapable based on are experiencing those drugs based on her actions caused by those drugs and that's the court and counsels actions in this case really restrained her from setting a defense because she didn't have any expert testimony in her case to establish that there was an alternate explanation for why should be a capable for instance drowsiness or some other source of incapacity it would have prevented her from driving now that being said let me turn to issue that was something that was about area of expertise that would have aided the trial back in this case because he could have provided testimony about impairment i would in fact of the case and the evidence in the case of the nd way the core erred was that the basis of the court's r ok he testified in other jurisdiction therefore he has to be allowed to testify in this direction i just think of the st thing you argue and i'm wondering why is it important all well i'm just pointing out that he has been made an expert in numerous other times he has it's something that goes legislators he has a deep breath of experience covering the impact of drugs and alcohol and driving in from that sense the court was was no wants to bust there and offer proof asked you specifically what the expert testimony a case like this where we have different drugs impacting her at different times and the timing of when she was driving versus taking these drugs and how tired she isn't all that i don't think that's really a lay person can completely balance and this evidence that drugs is the sole cause of her being capable of driving cars and that's and so is it your position that he didn't have expertise in terms well i mean when we talk about pharmacology are we talking about what the makeup of a drug is the impact it has on a body and don't you need something more than i've investigated cases or i  aware of when dealt with cases were people were driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs are you suggesting that that's enough without any in depth training education on actually the make up of drugs and how they impact the body why i think he has expertise in the expertise he has with that expertise looking at the quantity of alcohol and drugs and b police departments legislature other groups about what is the impact of these drugs on driving what are what are the different what are the different scenarios that would impact now i don't think he needs medical testimony or medical correct and what is incorrect about the operation that is you have to know what is what was his experience or training and administering the necessary tests that would answer the question of you know what was in this person's body what impact mean i didn't see that he had that type of training much as in scientists like the people who work at those state police lab and you mitchell well i think he gave that i think he gave that experience separately and this kind of area dealing with applied management decision science and so be a focus on workplace something that's the point and from there he branched off into more and more knowledge about substance testing typical semester work with the drug of narcotic coursework that if you're not remember what type of courses they were specifically or whether quote they were biology science or so a bit troubling especially when he can't remember what type of course they were it mentions the possibility of sociology classes being the context in which he studied about the gateway brand that's like so you got as i said you know since two thousand you had actually ran a drug lab testing for alcohol and drugs he had ran over saw that get that would give somebody i appreciate the effort for me it's not it goes beyond training i mean basically your argument in my view consistent if i manage if i run a doctor's office then now i'm an expert on what the doctor  doing well sants well i think it's a little bit different in this case we collins he is not just he's not just like an opposite minister is actually the person dealing with the moral level spent years focusing on the impact of drugs and alcohol on the body here on driving on how different institution  so i'm just taking one step from that since i think he does yes the training the experience the expertise and why doesn't have a traditional science education is education in areas th question concerns the rector you were arguing that the trial court combination of a trial court counsel kept him pro he didn't want to paper and they want to try to get funding for him and kind of just folded like a lot of the house of cards one he could get the opinion has money yes well you're right that that might very well be a failure so but still before we can conclude that the trial court had to decide and did decide if they were the state was that the defendant drove all under the influence of drugs which rendered capable of safely driving and that was a proximate cause of the victim's death not the proximate cause and nothing in the record shows that henson or dr saeed could provide any testimony which would support a conclusion that defendant was rendered incapable of safely driving not by drugs but solely due to some other cause nothing in the record shows that either could testify the defendant's driving under the influence of drugs to a degree that rendered her in capable the influence of drugs which render turned capable safely driving and that was the proximate cause the victim's death the evidence showed she drove while she was sleepy tired and drowsy there was no expert testimony that was needed to discussing what exactly he would have testified to clearly he has his experience and education as to from college in toxicology was limited to this lab that he ran only t collect and screen specimens and also some course that he couldn't quite remember the specifics about way back when that supposedly or that he testified did deal with pharmacology  so where does that get him in terms of what could be relevant or helpful to the trial court in this case the state's witnesses testified that many of the many drugs that were found by the cocaine metabolites which was also found in her blood and urine and which further affected her reaction time that were witnesses that witnessed her driving before the collision who testified that before the collision she was driving a radically swerving off the road at a high rate of speed she pulled over but then she got back on the road indicating impaired judgment which also was a side effect of the drugs in her system and when defendant veered off the road she was unable to make a minor correction to return to her lane and instead drove into the oncoming lane of traffic so the record contains nothing which would indicate that any witness could testify if the defendant was rendered incapable safely driving by drowsiness or sleepiness alone to the exclusion of the effects of the drugs in her system many of which themselves could cause not only drowsiness but also impaired judgment coordination  what expert testimony those witnesses would have given and that neither was qualified to give it in the desert a reasonable probability that the trials result would have been different had they given it whatever the testimony might have been and the defendant cannot establish anything that would have that would establish any any error in what the trial court did or what defense counsel the that certainly not the defense calls was ineffective and to the extent that perhaps defense counsel should have done more this court cannot on this record determine that it was ineffective assistance but as your honor pointed out just a statement that is more cause there's evidence in this record that she was travelling at the time of driving the question is why was she drowsy what was the cause the way the trial played on the fact that she wasn't allowed to present any expert testimony means that the sole know she was yes and i as i said i think that's a part of the record that supports there could have been an alternate cause for the accident the problem is that yes i didn't quite understand what you serve there kind of the record of what yeah i think that part of the record supports what i'm saying which is that it could support an alternate cause to the accident the problem is that without an expert to sort of tie these knots together all that's left is the state's expert to kind of weave together a story that these drugs can cause impairment makes me drowsy and there's no alternate in princes to be made beyond really the states gets so she does present stuff that she's tired and all that but the problem is that she has no expert to come in back it up make it a complete argument inserted give the critical because you could talk about what is the effect of this drug on her not just generally what happens in some you know example person takes the drugs you talk about her actual usage of the drug mentioned that the cocaine metabolite that only appeared in the urine which can be from weeks before she admitted she took it two days before there's no evidence that she had taken any cocaine metabolite on the day of the x and that's really more of a red herring than