conspiracy or further the conspiracy other than describing things that have already happened where is the invitation the month about over again you're on this is why i say in the wall all what has transpired become so bit that how is that asking him to help them continue to conceal well again the face it really again here we have to get to get to the s is implied or tacit admission and with respect i'd like to address the standard of review and i believe that it's very well established that typically a judge's rulings are never densher issues are addressed under abuse of discretion standard and in fact that one thing i would point out about the meeker case in their case that was a case where the trial judge had had originally had limited the statements to chief of police as  coconspirator statements we have a case here where judge way has determined that the statements in the strugglers case were going in the civil and again we may actually have an argument as a defense that maybe none of those statements should have been admitted but it was a very narrow  and statements we ran away because running away is concealed but my understanding used the dick to get that the dick i don't get this distinction for these purposes because a statement i bought in the past it's getting in the car and shot we shot at the car and i believe maybe something about shots being fired back that i think was just the f sins of what was excluded by judge whitner by your fact the chief of police is trying to curry this witness's silence and and i think in effect trying to make him a coconspirator there was a kiss cited by the state in the trial party what happened gave that person goods from the from the home invasion and said please take this item on it so basically ask them if they have third person to conceal something from possibly that someone shot back at them but yes that was it and as i said unfortunately at this stage we can't dispute the judge's rulings on the other matters fact we certainly can take the good in your yard tell you what you would hear we don't want you to tell the police showed people that she could have the guns in your yard there would be seemingly a statement maybe too if it's made in the presence of asking for this to be a  interpret it in that manner i'm telling you this and i mean that's not to consider the statement if he's not furthering i think you have to look at what the individual making the statement was doing to see if he was furthering the litigating this motion before the trial judge first of all the initial motion had only a police report attached to it that police report consisted of a statement that mystery giri made to the police about a year after the shooting and it indicates nothing about mr quest it doesn't mention him at all it's entirely a narrative a mystery theory saying this is what i was told second part of the record that the state produced and i think it was produced maybe at the hearing itself but not submitted with the original motion was a grand jury transcript from  grand jury testimony about six years after the shooting and the extra and script mr geary it makes a very big nonspecific statements that they said this and they said that respect to a thing they shot into the crowd so listen to this priest give it extend that this is allegedly a statement made by the defendant himself it's certainly it's admissible as an admission by that defendant there is no issue about implied missed admissions or tacit emissions the problem with the remaining portions of the grand jury transcript is that he never in that transcript identifies not only lay the proper foundation for admission of the codefendant statement as it initially against this particular defendant say they could have called mr geary as a witness to explain who said what was it was in the other person's foundational problem so why wouldn't we in because the state had the opportunity to present that evidence not only once but twice filed a motion to reconsider asking judge wagner to reconsider his ruling with respect to the reasonable gang member and whether or not mr acosta remained silent but they still did not present any evidence in any kind of accident or offer proof as to what the testimony foundation that it failed to present to the first time two times around so our position again is read on judge wait here is what is correct to the extent that he is excluded certain evidence that allegedly was made by mr close to that that was correct it was simply a narrative it was an attempt to conceal anything so it did not qualify as a coconspirator statement and with respect to mr opposed to that the state failed to lay the proper statements that describe efforts to conceal and that excluded statements were just direct statements of what occurred the crime and i'm not getting the distinction for purposes here i mean it sounds to me like suppose what we had is a guy say  in context bring in these other statements the judge excluded and my point used if the fact that they took evasive action is not that bad statement is not an effort to conceal as i see it i'm not that's my point although the they're taking making at that moment a further effort to conceal that's my difficulty i mean you're describing pastor has to conceal that doesn't mean the statement of describing past efforts to conceal is in itself an effort to conceal