it was not even close calls or chambers to allow the statement in the trial court did it correctly and allow the defense to present this statement in basis the fence around that statement unfortunately the trial court also began to indicate that it i told the informant that i killed this victim so that was originally what fans council thought was going through why this recantation was going to come in and eventually the state out of nowhere says they have to introduce this entire recantation including the part where reversible error in the context of the waiver of the rights of confrontation yes the illustrated court said you have to look at the strategy involved when there's a waiver of the confrontation right you think that that was really a big deal in this  but not really say oh this was the this was the most crucial piece of evidence the defense said but the state offered too weak eyewitness identifications from three girls who were running away turned around and saw sparks coming from the area where both the trying to use hindsight i'm not looking back i'm saying at the time counsel made this decision there was no use under it either the misimpression that this this had to come in or else his confession wasn't going to come in or he was taken off guard and just the and the problem is there was no benefit for him to stipulate what the status and point out any benefit for him to stipulate that martinez was a going to testify the student already said martinez was going to testify and it's clear that this was a testimonial statement and he told him why he said i had problems with them and he was seen at the gate he was seen at the crime scene and then for the state to bring in this testimonial repudiation without being they will approach that repudiation as is exactly what happened in chambers the court that in chambers there recantation and that's and that court found that was a violation of the rights of confrontation and we know from crawford now if this is even an even stronger guarantee if this these types of statements made the solemn declarations made to prove fact against you look at the trial strategy and if there is no sound strategy then you have then that was improper and he admission of the evidence was improper and it becomes a constitutional violation which has to be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and where ther shirt so the final was standing on top of the picnic table the other witness didn't say that both were running away both were turning around while this is going on and it not only did it conflict with each other but you have this third party confession where by the find it sound like well i think there's a reason i don't like it because it serves no purpose at what was you why would you negate your entire defense by allowing the states introduce the statement without being because of the questions on the first issue and let's move quickly to the second issue which is again a confrontation issue this time under the recent authority of about melinda's dia's the united states supreme court case finding that a forensic analysis is hearsay rule but i think since no one has deals came down that can no longer stand that the court there clearly indicated that autopsy reports are a type of forensic analysis and the court also held that friends like analysis is testimonial hearsay building on crawford and if you look at people be starkly the illinois supreme court case which defines testimonial autopsy reports fall squarely within the definition of testimonial they're solid statements made to prove the facts relevant to the confession specifically said five it could if there was actually six which my reading of the autopsy report indicates night i spelled out what six means i believe those are in the brief then that would indicate that maybe it was the defendant's confession that was was don't don't explain much of anything other than the fact that there were some bullet wounds in this body the report was a matter of their like to not i don't i don't see a problem with this the pictures coming in because again there's no  with and counsel do next correctly here in objecting to the autopsy report he said i can't i can't cross examine the with the author of this report and that's a valid that was a  which this objection should have been the inability to cross examine which is a sixth amendment violation and so counsel to any preserve dead in this in this post trial motions so he did preserve this issue fully for review and he was correct he couldn't  couldn't cross examine this author he put he made the point that this is a very technical document that a lot of things when i'm explaining it and while the cause of death was not disputed a variety of other things in the report were relevant to the defense and that trajectory and as as i noted before one of the witnesses indicated that the shooter was standing on a picnic table bench while another did not so there are a lot of items in the in the report that cross examination could admission by antonio martinez to the informant this ruling in spite of what defendant says in this brief and what he set up here an argument was never changed by the trial court now that's the ruling this before this court would indicate it was potentially reconsidering never changed the ruling and never changed the ruling because this handwritten statement came in by way of stronach window of stipulation in agreement between the parties so that's not really in dispute to the extent that this contingent ruling issue finds its way in the case and defendant sort of picks and chooses out of context and the stuff in the record that never happened ok also it's undisputed that antonio martinez made a second contradictory statement in the handwritten to this third party admission that define that wanted to introduce to the informant he made a second contradictory statement to the assistant state's attorney saying no i did it it wasn't the shoot i just claimed that because i wanted to be big and feel good and impress this higher ranking gay member ok so statement was his statement on twenty or martinez made in the handwriting to the state's attorney never ever finds its way in our case but for its relationship to the third party admission that defi introduced it's a relevant to us otherwise why would we introduce something that another guy says to a state's attorney saying i'm not the shooter is not part of our case it only takes a value for us and the only reason we want  that is one of the reasons that they offered our during the course of sort of an evolving argument between the parties before the trial court with respect to the admission are as happens in a lot of cases with respect to the mission of a lot of affidavits in the pretrial contacts that's one of the reasons even if that's what the search attorney said which she does say he also says various times he he says he says he says to the informant i'm sure well he says to the state's attorney i'm not the shooter i just said it because i wanted to be impressive so ultimately for this court the decision is whether or not that is a legitimate piece of evidence that was properly fairness the rival the playing field issue in this case that's the essence of reporting agreement he asked in some stupid way should the parties agree hey we're going to agree you scratch my back i'll scratch your back this with this like that brings me to actually what i consider has become kind of the big issue in this case for family and has made up a newly minted constitutional right to ineffective assistance of stipulation there's no such thing as a sound a qualitative analysis for a trial strategy decision in the context of the stipulation that weighs confrontation rates he got it from some loose language  campbell that's why he steadfastly hanging on to campbell but the only supreme court clued up in the next case and phelps could have got rid of that sound language that rigidity at trial strategy language from the test that he's talking about in stipulate to that bottom line is that he doesn't do this he's an absolute danger of losing anything related to antonio martinez admitting to be the shooter in this case and that's why it was a good a very good decision on the  just very briefly defending himself put the witness on so the third party admission came into a defendant's own witness mcdonnell state down response moment donald said chambers absolutely never ever known where it says that there's a constitutional right for a defendant to insist that we put our impeachment on through arrive witness only that's just not the ruling of chambers what happened in this case were to have an entry relates to proper evidence tree rulings if you will and they're not even if they're considered by this quite it's definitely not subject to the harm the stand a reasonable doubt standard split rationales out there in the case the most arup grounds controls rationale and that's justice thomas concurrence so defendant has never really no absolutely not no i'm just saying bye to each full charge this is the way the analysis needs to go it needs to go through the harmlessness first and only if and only if we get beyond that which we all miss case we get to the merits defense says well if i had the i me on the stand i could highlight it from some you know real close range you know evidence of close range well the fact is he did say that he made that argument in close with all the evidence anywhere the next round that he says is to the autopsy report and said well you know maybe there were six shots six bullets the gun had six bullets right that would be the point of establishing that exploration of the number of bullets and one that's not what the autopsy report says that  he's just taking what he needs to be the murder weapon the murder weapon that they got from antoni in my chain is that connected up to the murder is a five shot thirty caliber gun he's just not only uncorroborated his admission which is what he said he's also undo because this is a confrontation issue the states the state is actually saying that it's harmless because we know what to do with the i mean we have testified to and as you as you pointed out only response to say ahead as to why council's stray here was sound for allowing this stipulation to go forward was because counsel feared that he couldn't get his confession and if he didn't recant now that's the very definition of an unsound strategy that heat the state's entire premise is based on the fact that martinez is recantation could have come in anyway even though they were going to call him and they say ok can come in because it was merely impeachment but as you're going to point out this of allowing impeachment evidence and is a can be taken substance of what is well and in this case the words there was the state claims it's impeachment but there's clearly a substantive component and there was no instruction so you can't that you can't hold that this was impeachment evidence only without a woman instruction and i know that every case to say relies upon the quick trial court made a very clear to the jury's considering this only for impeachment in this case this was a testimonial statement you substantively against the fina without the right to cross examine it and