of his girlfriend and his mother what real harm does that do i mean isn't it miscible for that the man in this case is that it be him a focus of the trial two thirds of the cro examination of the mother were involved her actions was there any question here about the defendant's possession and use of a pocket the problem with that that makes it even explicitly stated this on the record he didn't say because of the girlfriend's in the mother's actions he finds their testimony credible he said because of their actions he rejects the defendant's claim of self defense if you take the and clearly it's in artfully expressed thought but couldn't it just as easily be referring to the fact that the testimony of the other witnesses which is part of his defense their defense witnesses i was impeached by the fact that they concealed and helped to conceal the weapon but he didn't see them as more forthcoming more objective than they would of had a turned it over or at least not been part and parcel of the concealment of the weapon well i'm going to pick up your argument a little bit because i think i being explicitly laid on the tables the state can respond if i take it your argument in its extrapolation would be that the judge may have speculated here about the intimate knowledge of the mother and the girlfriend of what actually happened and that if they were motivated to conceal the kni him properly in his use of the knife and that therefore somehow that knife warranted the seal am i short changing your argument in its full articulate air degree your honor that that the impeachment up the girlfriend in the mother we would argue because this is a closely balanced case and there was no or very little physical evidence to corroborate each other either version of the story presented to the court not believe the testimony of that girlfriend but he also stated that he didn't hide the defendant's claim of self defense because of the girlfriend's in the mother's actions well that's a whole slew going to i think if you bear with me i am going to postulate the other side of the the other issue with this case where all the it that it's in the first portion of your argument that you're choosing not to pursue but that argument would be   or something that really was not technically his and then stating that he turned around and walked back and happened to fall off which would either indicates a lack of sobriety a possible lack of s somewhere in between the two as it's so with the picture i think i was i carefully thought about whether i was going to make the site's accumulation here early you folks just do it on your own i thought we would submit to the court that angela corey's version of events is contrary to human experience and highly improbable he is his testimony was that he charged down the scouts went outside the gate it property all so as i would note i'm he was stabbed on the back and his testimony is that he fell he turned about was laying on his back and then the defendant doris came in and stabbed him who where were the injuries when he testified the angel torres would come down charging leap the private property to confront darrius roman while he's waiting for his mom on the street corner punched him in and then suddenly turned to leave and the problem in this case is that the court relied on the actions of the defendant's girlfriend and the mother to make the determination of whether he acted in self defense or alternatively to choose to reject the impact of this purported it mission of the post act high degree of the weapon yes if you assume that  it's totally improper which is that we even so if the impact is limited to his rejection of their testimony the problem in this case would be that their bias was already established by their relationship with their defense so you can't add any additional bias just because you know that the argument of the defense counsel is going to be yeah it's undeniable that they have this relationship conspire to hide their relationship was testified to they clearly said that they care if they define it and didn't want anything bad to it testimony concerning the night which became a focus of the trial and again it was two thirds of jeanette roamings cro mother which did not make any of those things more or less likely would just like to lead by saying that as you noted this was a closely balanced case emotions were high and there was little physical evidence to corroborate their versions of the facts the fact that the court focused on the highly prejudicial and improper testimony of the defendant's girlfriend and mother of the actions that happened surrounding the night well after the event and with no evidence of knowledge or involvement i'm the the whole argument the defendants made predicated on this sort of link to i don't buy the best offense to this particular piece of it's right dummy page ok ok well i just i just want i confused by the defense in that at one point it's argued that here's an older man tall and weighs fifty more pounds than his eighteenth than this eighteen year old five two hundred thirty pounds soaking wet person and then the same argument that if you wanted to he could have disabled struggle man by making a more lethal strike with a knife now that does not sound to me as if the person reasonable belief that this was necessary for an imminent death or great bodily harm i don't buy is self defense it's the end of that paragraph then he goes  and he says no waiting he leaves the knife on the scene he flees the scene he doesn't go to the police now we're going to get to the night his girlfriend recovers the night she doesn't turn the knife over to the police she calls the mother  defendant turns and i fall for her and she loses the knife so i don't buy his the facts so this i don't buy his self defense is not linked soley to a credibility determination it's not like soley to actions with respect to the knife it's something that it's almost a formula that he's a monster that he's saying as he goes through each eat these paragraphs depicting me the summation of the facts and yes and just picked right i meant i meant no believe miss gonzales there's also that it's in there yes yes rob it is just with respect to that one particular witness not both of them yet and it was a risk with respect to certain things they were very specific about her testimony about how there was this whole brouhaha brewing it in her own apartment and that according to her testimony of the victim in this case just suddenly shows up just appears out of nowhere does it matter how much time person biased prejudiced or interested in the outcome yes right now whether they spent two thirds of the process or not and this the state was entitled to hammer home what they believed would show that the witness  about what the the witnesses did with the knife is that that's the record in like us as to where the judge was going with that statement in revealing his judgment till state of mind i think it was that he had gone through in particular attacking the series circuit defense theories that have been raised in the paragraph perceiving that he he dealt with the particular defense theory that on the one hand this guy's bigger than me and he's attacking me so it's clearly the aggressor but by the same token he's a drunk old man and i could have heard of course but does how does his comment about the conduct of the mother and girlfriend with respect to the kni e fit into the sequence of his comments that you just read out to us i step aside from the possibilities that we've already discussed when you were on was off it said the defense came up with certain theories he's picked the court is one by one destroying sort of those theories one of those interesting lee just like you leaving beforehand was me when mr taras came out of the apartment house and confronted him it was like he was settled down for the evening and then suddenly after this he wants to run away he was waiting for his mother to come pick him up in the first place that's true that's true the worst thing right where is the will the competition changed in nature though that originally that the victim came down and and confronted the defendant about what happened upstairs in the park and that there was even a physical exchange that the victim hit  but there was a change in that confrontation the victim's testimony is that he walked away from that and that the defendant that attacked now the victim's version that might want to talk about proper ation this is a very important point the victim testimony is the only test or in this case it's crime the victim said that he was stabbed twice he's the only person that saves him twice he said he was stabbed in the arm and in the back now being stabbed in the back is not generally indicative of self defense of the testimony regarding the secretion of the knife after the fact it ties it in two ways one would be sort of zero with respect to health care that the evidence here who you keep calling the victim who initiated the contact and initiated the physical blows and struck first and then last so i mean the judge is entitle to sit there and listen to the evidence and come to his findings as to who was at fault criminally under these circumstances but to characterize this is as a strong overwhelming case in any way i really contrary to the experience of most people who have been doing criminal off well i'm being careful begin to be would be rushing to volunteer to try this case as a prosecutor because it was a strong case i mean careful not to use the word overwhelming but there's different ways that evidence could be non prejudicial not just looking at the strength of the of the case when where it was taken if this evidence was taken as a given peaching just the testimony just it is a big haul to the scene they call in find out what happened he said his knife they are now he wants to make a phone call to find out what happened that's number one number two when victims and when when court look at this terms of the credibility of these witnesses anything else from that one quote one sentence by the judge is part of his overall summary that somehow he considered that as something other than impeachment ok with him in this state elicited t the judge thought it was admissible for purposes of impeaching the other witnesses by their post crime or post stabbing actions whatever the state was intending the judge knife play important role in this case was interspersed throughout his contacts and it was not just that one sentence and he sat on the record several times that because of the actions involving the knife the fact that the defendants fled the scene didn't pick up the his guilt or innocence in this case somehow i and that the state is bringing that out through the mother and the girlfriend were actions of the defendants close associates and family members actually consider this as affecting the credibility of the defendant and his testimony as opposed to the other witnesses who are actually gauged in the kind of high you under the standard  that best lends itself to speculative kinds of interpretation that word speculative is is there's a barrier in our ruling but it's not her job or it it doesn't mean that it's two versions of the one the versions of the them were not or close there may be a difference of a new and we've offered me and i'm not saying that this is necessarily the case or one way or another we've all seen a farm of discretionary calls where we may have ourselves exercised our discretion the other way and i'm not going to speculate in this case because i was complaining witness in this case the court made its decision on the record considering the testimony of the wife of the wife the mother and the girlfriend regarding their actions involved in the night he did not make her record bedhead no mention of back it is on their day he said because of the girlfriend picking up the night even the mother her losing it i don't buy his defense he also said that he didn't find the girlfriend credible matt i true and i'm certainly not going to say that that didn't happen by the fire to say in this case that the judge made no reliance on testimony regarding the night when he mentioned it several times