respectively and then the state will respond twenty minutes has been allocated for you with five minutes each for rebuttal is that correct if we can correct our right then on if you are ready to proceed we are  first that the defendant was engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that too was intended to prevent the witness from testifying there's no doubt in this case we're going to start from the start with the second one there's no doubt that patrick was killed to prevent him from testifying the record shows that charles stand graham into the spot that patrick was the only eyewitness to the shooting and that's why he was killed and you see that in the record davis twelve charleston that patrick was the only eyewitness and trip down now charleston said he was going to kill patrick because he tripped on them graham and said that patrick statement was the only evidence against them that wouldn't stick and that he deserved to be killed for tricking on them and then davis derisively said to detect a faberge when he said that he'd been and eight two thousand and nine he wasn't killed twenty a week two months later but he testified before the grand jury i mean twenty nine and was killed approximately one week after that to prevent him from testifying for there and you don't even have to just focus on patrick you can look at what else happened out there that night of the shooting because everyone acted nobody stayed on the scene to talk to the police even though their friend had been shot and killed the police had to seek them out and when they did each of the witnesses said that they didn't want to cooperate they had a concern that they would be killed if they did so it may have started out as a shooting just because that it became the shooting to prevent patrick from testifying and the evidence here also shows that the defendant a wrong doing they gave tacit assent again davis specifically told charleston that patrick was tripping on them and that he was the only eyewitness to the shooting and then there charleston now after goes out and kills patrick davis didn't have to say or do anything wrong to charleston because they were part of the well organized criminal enterprise that belonged to the same gang again that's well organized it has different people have jobs and everybody knows what those jobs on and once i knew the necessary wasn't in jail and nobody held that a witness gets eliminated that's anything but a coincidence this is conversation with charleston was motivated by a desire to prevent him from testifying those are all reasonable expenses based on the record especially with a trial court can consider all hearsay from a small amount from patrick strangely testimony and with the state's burden is only a preponderance of the evidence the defendants try to argue that they didn't personally do or say anything and they want you to look at them each a separate single pieces but they're not they're part of a bigger conspiracy that works together and you do it davis again telling charleston those words patrick was the only eyewitness cannot imply with an intent to prevent the witness's testimony in dinkins shows us in their case that second prong of chile has to be substantiated with evidence that the defendant engaged in some type of conduct that would prevent the witness  testifying we absolutely have that evidence here you have davis is statement again to charleston that patrick was the only eyewitness and that he tripped down them charleston was part of that original conspiracy and they're all part of that same criminal enterprise  the correct application of the conspiracy liability within the forfeiture by wrongdoing analysis and it does strike a balance between the competing interests that are at stake up one final thing would be that the trial but when you absolutely not and abuse of discretion those findings are not under reasonable or fanciful given the back and especially again when you consider your say evidence is allowed that the trial court can call control of the reasonable inferences based on the evidence and that the state's burden here is only a preponderance of the evidence we met that here and we'd ask you to affirm if there are no questions we would present a brief and request that you are from the defendant's convictions thank you thank