shooting at the defendant in this particular case that could not come out under any circumstances and i think that answers a little bit your question just distort the clear eventually does and i believe the time i put down the final serving of what the court's ruling is an adventurer he just says you know you have to say that there's a place pending that these people bring the case but i'm not going to allow any connection between that case and this or rodrigue motion and many in the court said i think i'm not going to allow this pair i want you guys to briefly and then the court does say ok you can bring in this evidence in a court says you can't bring in this evidence and so the order at least three different rulings  this particular case and when the motion for a new trial was fired i believe the trial judge probably only wrote at the very first ruling and characterized that is the final ruling of the court but it was it and i believe that trial counsel appropriately right with the last ruling of the court pretty important to your honor and yes there was some evidence that came out about this but for example if just because there's additional evidence of bias that doesn't mean that it's not admissible when evidence is developed over time as evidence of bias necessarily robey that becomes admissible  as any kind of impeachment it's for example one of the witnesses who are testifying ended up getting a conviction in the intervening period that definitely would have been brought up during that witness's testimony just because it didn't occur to this mean that it's not admissible  bias that hatred that ms holland had for mr rodriguez and that was the crux of the defense but there's also a good issue here to state bridge over miss holland and it's important to keep that in mind to change if she wanted to come forward and tell the truth as far as the defense was complaining witness in the other case against her saying she's necessarily going to he's he's very likely to testify unless you know of the sun puts in a pretty and they seem less credible as a witness if he's convicted in this particular case certainly some reason ask him have you cry or been convicted of prior felony driveway and that two of them were gunmen and had guns but there was a third upon armed bystander in the driveway the defense in the state stipulated that a police officer would testify the same way that immediately after the shooting occurred with ministry of this priest officer that there was a third on our person in the police officers that says i'm sorry words of prejudice set up the stairs of prejudice is a reasonable probability that the result would have been different here we have two trials where the evidence was largely the same but they came to two different conclusions the jury did i think that  things messing around with a car after a shooting occurs in your front yard or in your driveway is reasonable it's reasonable once it's a safe area to go out make sure that your cars are making sure that nobody screwed that nothing's been damaged that you can get to work the next day to have a flat tire this is reasonable it means something very different when somebody goes out and put something into a car after shooting it certainly suggests that they have something to hide so substantively this is more damaging evidence and trial counts was ineffective for failing to impeach ms holland with her prior under oath statements that it was that what actually treyarch mr rodriguez on an accountability theory is certainly would have been a viable defense the other point i'd like to make is that the state throws around this word speculation a lot what we're doing is a reasonable probability that the result would have been reasonable probability that the result would have been different had trial counsel advance the same defense that resulted in a hung jury in the second trial that the trial is was remarkably similar between the two trials one trial it  was mr rodney descending the driver of that being that there would be no gunpowder residue on his hands that would mean that he wouldn't have his fingerprints on the cartridges that words ejected at that we would have his fingerprints on any gun that was recovered even though there's no testimony that a gun was recovered or there was nothing consistent dispatcher or she never ever said that it was this particular defendant i want to make that clear she was cross examined on that point she admitted during trial she never would identify this particular defendant and she also admitted that the mr people living next door who stayed the night in one dispatcher right and once you do it even if that takes two hours i'm going to stay to go through every prior consistent statement that ms holland has ever made that's consistent with the trial testimony and then there's this this slate discussion about what that range is and trial counsel at that point has been