was designed solely to inflame the passions of the jury evidence about how the murders affected live a surviving family and evidence from the cheetos and seven order of protection hearing it first it was you three we are you that evidence about how the murders the very outset starting in opening its opening statements it focused on there was there is a my there on the children and then the but those had to respond to the state's argument and so it kind of did the best it and then it and then at the end mentioned what happened to the family that it was an absolute upon the nation and that don't forget the three year old child  admissible was colored by the end of a civil evidence for example the text messages which are certainly disturbing but they are ambiguous and it's only when they're considered in light of the particular order of protection hearing where  was speaking finally great about direct death threats which we have no other direct evidence of that in this trial that that the text messages and makes them become sinister in a way that they don't know that they would have become expert testified that the phone was within the coverage area of the tower and also a cross examination he admitted that so phones are usually within a one or two mile radius from the tower that utilize for call but that will doesn't apply to downtown chicago where there state used to track going to look asian and this case so this appear but haven't yet decided the precise issue presented here and that when you look at jones secular concurring opinions which focus on the ways in which modern methods and methods of electronic monitoring including cell phones permit the government an unprecedented ability to cheaply generate a comprehensive record of a person's life and their work their way may alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is limited to democratic society reasoning the the for the limit certainly protects the cell phone location information but even if the square determined that the united states supreme court and the fourth amendment to any government action this notion that there was a painting this isn't a case there's any evidence that the police asked the phone company to to locate the forum in terms of send a message out of see if something comes back in a public and open and accessible place he drove it from chicago public streets so his is the case in indiana was not a secret to anyone who happen to go by this car say the frank it would have been no chance in the world for a defendant to have done this at trial at that the level at the trial court level and of course there isn't enough information in the record to to reverse on this issue as we pointed out in the previous is that got us holding less the gunshot residue earlier said that it was certainly it in response to those types of questions that the state was entitle to bring up the the the trauma that no head dead had gone through and explain the fact that he didn't make a statement that he was a traumatized three year old not an issue the question is whether or not the cross examination there was an opportunity for pass examination in a proceeding that had the same or similar so this the notion that there was no disc from the defendant's conviction it's actually to no standard review because they are constitutional issues and the evidence was certainly unduly prejudicial regarding the order of protection hearing this call it in people versus work higher that the focus of an order of protection hearing is the end we get protection of abuse family or household members not the guilt of the accused and the more general protection of society and also in dangerous versus washington so supreme court rejected