because it's the reson and sam at trial specifically denied telling a different story and because telling different stories at different times went directly to his believ y and looking at materiality and then prejudice to my client trial counsel's most important proffer from the honeymoon officer regarding the entry into the apartment had been a detailed police report showing that the bed contrary to dicky's trap testimony dickie said they've battered me which contradicted his testimony at trial dickey said they just came yeah cancels request for the continuance was not unreasonable in terms of time just a few days a matter of tan or eleven days  well no because in this case number one there were options and ten eleven is the most and that's when and counsel actually asked for a shorter period ten or eleven was just to accommodate the judge's schedule and the schedule could have been to accommodate it and the schedule should not be the only motivating factor and there was a weekend in there and the jury needed to decide this case fairly so it didn't have to be ten or eleven days and it could have been last and and there were options believes and was misinformed or was not told in the city had a continuing duty to provide a free flowing information to counsel of his availability and that didn't those these circumstances the judge should not have sad well they have mock and elevated his own travel plans of going to south carolina on friday over the importan so the only other witness was detective walters and he did testify so it was clear that in the state was pretty dicky on so the state knew that if dickie denied that statement then officer lance was going to be to be the bible witness pietschmann so it would it would be impossible to believe that the state would not know all that and that left the defense and everything be schedule without ever telling witness he's a police officer he's in and the defense does not have that kind of access to the defense to snap have home addresses the defense is not going through the the bowels of the police department and and and the the point being is is that you have two parties and it's relevant to fault and reliance and it's the state that laid low and the state didn't come forward and the defense the defense did what it needed to do because the subpoena this is pino wasn't necessary and might not have done anything good either so when you look at this and when you look at the trial  nobody done anything about getting that person there and it was a police officer i would i be i would be looking for a way to resolve the difference in this case is there seem to be a pattern here because the terms of the set and act and here the jury during deliberations asked the court to be provided with with legal definitions and the court but the quit said there were nine which advocated the court and there are several reasons why that is true number one is if the case law is the way the they have were case and especially the markdowns case which is going to this and that that rule and in this in this case when it's jury questions and when it's a answers and the answers are available and they're important then then yes it must be done in the in the judge and the state of all the state the state and frankly is a sop for my appeal because they agree with our position that that the question should have been so it was not strategic it was stewart's it was a it was a stay and the only reason we did not argue ineffective assistance of counsel was because the duty of wants to the court under the cases that we cited and just to add to that why why maybe that is so important in some cases that's correct but cannot argue something that appeal that someone's someone has participated in but the difference is that's usually strategic and it's not as important as it is here and here so we by complaint here under the closely balanced test the other the other point that i need to highway is the stat the any answer available they should have been given but and sat there left to fend for themselves and in unable them to to to believe in in trying to figure this out that the mere acts of joining or or  present with the group come what may whatever's going to happen in that household is not well when that's when that's not correct on that one he had a good t to strong case in the jury should have come back not guilty so so he he threw the punches but there were so many errors in this case that that that the the jury was prejudiced and didn't have the tools necessary to weigh the argument the prosecutor was attempting to prevail in all the defendants in as a principal an accomplice and and then they also the jury was also concerned with both kinds of factors so needed to have the staff and emissions and if they have they could have they could have found that the ringleader alleged ringleader in this case was it was not my client was a parent and my client was following a parent who's passive he said he got  nader battery and that's the only thing left and that's the only thing that my client would have done under the sufficiency of the evidence if you didn't get a fair trial so the entry the intent the the the knowledge entry there was a knocking on the door the resident samuel taken him coming downstairs agreeing that the visitors openly and truthfully stated their purpose and then escorted them my client until through the house and no matter how we look at us no matter how we looked at it the entry was not an authorized no matter what happened later no matter what happened in that she backed him well whose hand was on the door knob there been no break in there was no entry and what is important here is fact the element of unauthorized entry is measured by an objective standard it's what we look what we look at what the resident conveys and does because it's the residence in the door or not the situation is still the same number one is bad that that in the air is locked in which case in which case he he had to open the door and he defense didn't have to prove that we were invited inside and this is the case this that the fans say that to prove that that he they were trying to keep them out or trying to throw them out and because this is not a situation where it could be thank you mr majors assistance of counsel and when they didn't  phone they have a description and they have pictures of the front door but they're not in a part of this record where the windows are on the side you can't you know you don't come down steps and look see how far you have to go here or go over there was at a party he got into a scuffle so you know it was a folk young man plus alcohol in full chaos and violence he leaves she vows to return he says he's going to come back with a gun and blow everybody away he goes and complains to his father why are you wearing a mask if you're looking to find this a case of why are you wearing a mask why do you keep the mask on when you go down to punch you in the face because you're committing a criminal act and you don't want to be was be just the opposite this one of the potential peach but if it all by investigating officers who the who the state said came later on the crime scene and probably just repeated what other officer say about if you live at the record that we're going to get him judge that we don't subpoena him we'll have him here well they didn't do anything and now this agreement with the police department is just something that the lawyer said and we all know it but as far as i whining whining confusion on the jury instructions i find that rather cynical counsel wanted to hear her he wanted the jury to be instructed he when he makes a mistake makes a mistake but to say that he was laying in the weeds and why any confusion is is is is not supported by the record and it's frankly offensive for a fee the motorcycle issue  it's not it's not leading and it's not in it and it happened on more than one occasion and it seems to be a pattern here because it happened four times because it was part of their theory the case since they didn't have any evidence that my client knew mike my client was not connected with cory he wasn't the pretty pretty he didn't know any threats he had the only way they can try to take this group of people know that's correct but there's a dispute about the entry in the sense i'm on the sense that that each that craig who the critic and dickie do not do not testify exactly the to take him to find shake up and let's get this over with of let's find out what happened because there is a missing person that's what craig testified so if rats in the jury could have found not only would last this testimony teach did a good would also them he they knew about this and there was an emergency and he let him and he didn't want to admit it he didn't want to admit it but what he did whether you miss it or not and that's why it's not such a contest that the reasonable doubt is that no matter how you look at what he did that it's admissible he's he doesn't say anything until he's he's pressed by the dispatcher it isn't until the very end he says he says you almost get the impression that you don't even know that he was there when he sang home what happened here he says