for the maker of the methamphetamine there's a two step process to allow a reason when friends of the intent of the of the conspirators are given the precursor so that when a quantity of the actual precursor comes into play if i'm following you are you're saying that to the state need to put on evidence that a half gallon of coal in fuel would produce so many grams of matt is that you're saying yes that's what i'm saying in order for for get to prove one's specific intent of what he intended to contribute to the conspiracy he gave precursor to women period but there was no evidence as to how much meth could be made there was only the first as to how much precursor you gave him and in specific  amount beyond that there was the can was half full a general term we don't know exactly what the specific quantity was and second step of that is that there was no evidence about how much methamphetamine could have been made with that amount to be warmly slipped it on never said one gave me fuel and i used it to make methamphetamine second of all there was a plastic bottle of home fuel found also found after and the bloomberg never testified that that bottle was empty before he made the and i exonerated from the conspiracy because they didn't use mine i believe in my case i took a substantial step toward aiding them in the commission of a crime by providing a fire and there are later choice simply not to use that the city fire doesn't take away my culpability or does it well i think in that particular case you're on a bad hypothetical defendant had a specific intent to contribute to an armed robbery and the fact that triggered based on the different quantity you take issue it's the state's burden to show that this particular defendant who contributes to the conspiracy intended to help produce a specific quantity why because apparently because  of the penalty because we're talking about sending someone to prison for a few to expire with one cook who isn't very good at it it's better for you and conspiring with guys that know how to produce because they're going to produce more but you're only going to be but then your fallback position you're only going to be responsible for the very specific amount that you testified that this amount of precursor could have produced this amount of methamphetamine regardless of the efficiency of the cook that would be sufficient to show intent that's a separate case but then the knowledge of the provider you're you would just be guessing and you really don't care how much is reduced you just know that you're contributing to the conspiracy and maybe you'll get some back from it maybe they'll be honest with you about how much they create how much  they sold but how many for but how many people that participate in this know exactly how many doses are going to be produced based on what they contributed when they come back from decatur with packages of sudafed or they come from k mart with batteries how do they know how much is going to be produced well and that's why the law allows for this kind of constructive intent where where and this is the  it probably within the law the previous week the police officer said you know we know that there was an old product in the trailer and bloomberg testified but i'm how did he come up with that as to me hey that even closely tied to the fuel one gave you i'm struggling meth it's closely tied if you want provided with two hundred eighty six grams in the bathroom but for the reasons i stated the state failed to prove that the well i think we have to be careful that what we're calling the conspiracy you know we're talking about whether a particular defendant is guilty of conspiracy that does not mean that that defendant is liable for every would run afoul of the al ween principle that you can't subject someone to a greater penalty without specific proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the intent there so we mean i think i think the constitution would i would  counsel to be careful before we expand conspiracy already expands the defense liability beyond what the simple participation in meth manufacturing it if subject someone in this charge offense to twelve to fifty years in prison additional b to go take it one step beyond that and say the person is liable for the methamphetamine was produced under before or after his contribution but not linked to his contribution because merely because it was produced by the co spirators that i think would go one step beyond what the constitution allows and i think that's what adopting the statement would we do here most i believe the most thing we said about the state's evidence in this case is that they may show that long intended to contribute to some quantity of methamphetamine production but not that they show that he intended to help produce one hundred grams necessary to trigger the various fruity there such evidence can only support a conviction for the general form of the offense and this court should reduce his conviction to that general decides the first argument the evidence here was close enough that one was denied his right to a fair trial by the pervasive errors that infected this trial from beginning to end opening statements questioning  closing arguments the jury should have been presented here with a straightforward question of one's credibility in the face of the state's largely circumstantial case of his guilt but given everything the jury heard in this case that there are deep details in the briefs i don't believe we can have any confidence that the jury's verdict rested on nothing but the admissible relevant evidence and i'd like to discuss a few of them the  and reversible air on this ground alone just just the mere fact of the impeachment by practically action but here there was worse because it was compounded in multiple ways the judge only admitted the two thousand a burglary conviction for impeachment and the prosecutor even said that he was only going to talk about the two thousand and one getting sensitive under the for the facts of that case but then even after acknowledging that when mom gets on the stand the prosecutor yes it's a little bit confusing on but the the oh so the prosecutor impeach along with two prior convictions one if the judge admitted for impeachment the two thousand and eight version three but he also asked him weren't you convicted of a me knowledge about coleman fuel and before long testified the prosecutor said i'm not going to introduce the conviction from the two thousand and one incident it's not for impeachment it's just for the facts of that incident and that's  because getting to testify but despite telling the court in defense counsel that when one got on the stand to prosecutor asked him weren't you convicted after that two thousand one incident joseph and so that just compounded what was already very serious error because he was already committing error by impeaching him with the priors in the first place the prosecutor then further compounded that error by both emphasizing those priors in closing and exaggerating the number of them we need he told the jury in closing that there were three prior convictions that i told you about so just just to discuss this  serious errors for example the prosecutor engaged in a systematic bolstering of his key witness michael bloomberg most egregiously in closing argument he flat out told the jury quote i really believe the michael bloomberg was very very truthful again another cardinal rule of violated prosecutors are not allowed to personally say that they believe that a witness was credible or not and again that the serious error requiring new trial alone but this particular was also compounded multiple ways the prosecutor listed evidence that bloomberg gave a prior consistent statements right to have elements to the jury and proof beyond a reasonable doubt but really what the defense is arguing about is the nature of the element itself so the statute provides that the penalty for methamphetamine conspiracy offense includes the cumulative weight that's tribute of all to the current to the conspiracy for the duration of the conspiracy so in other words that is the element that the state has to prove in order to obtain a higher penalty so there's nothing unconstitutional about that simply shifting the nature of the element from a general conspiracy type case to this methamphetamine conspiracy case which is has a unique statute so there's no sixth amendment violation the statute itself is not unconstitutional just because it phrased the element in a different way the elements so has to be proved guy read and found by a jury by beyond a reasonable doubt and that was done here except for the fact that he was convicted to over four hundred grams offense and the state is conceded that the cumin of the weight attributable to the conspiracy for the duration the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt has only shown to be the two eighty five and a half grams that were found in the gate or a bottle in the bathroom sink and the reason why is because this conspiracy was charged i believe was related to a conspiracy between defendant after the coleman is delivered by the defendant so the only methamphetamine that was tames during the duration of the conspiracy was that that and substance containing methamphetamine that was in the gate or a bottle inside the bathroom which happened to be very close by the jug of coleman fuel now defense says there is no proof of how much was in the coleman but people's exhibit to refer to the fact that was a half gallon can and it was half necessary for the state to show exactly how much of it and how much methamphetamine could if theoretically been derived from the colon that the senate provided because that substance containing methamphetamine is in the  right next to the colon so the state proved that that actual substance came at least inferentially from i don't know the circumstances from that coleman fuel the defendant provided because the evidence showed that birch was out of home and fuel to make more methamphetamine and so that's why they needed more and that's why the defendant gave it because they were all paranoid they were all being surveilled by police that those facts are us on the record shown that that coleman actually produced the two a five and a half grams of substance containing methamphetamine there is no need to prove it is a matter of theory so therefore the defense also criticizing the state lack of proof of intent well the defense is mis reading the statute the element that has to be proved under the sixth amendment is the kremlin of weight of substance attributable to the conspiracy for the duration  and with this having got that he's also accountable for everything that was produced during the during the conspiracy so essentially even if the defendant intended on making ten thousand grams of methamphetamine and said so to the police it seems like i defense sort of like intense whether he intended only a little bit or a large amount to be produced is irrelevant it's not an element of the offense of methamphetamine conspiracy of which he was convicted he did not have to prove we did not have to prove to the defendant intended that any particular amount of methamphetamine be produced and we had to show that a certain cumulative weight was produced and we did and that's to say it would but not the four hundred that was the conviction it was only it should be review the elements being no go and figure out what actually is required to be proved here and then figure out whether the state medicine burden of proof at least as to this included offense that and so for those reasons the state would request this court to so with respect to the other issues defense says that there were actually only i'm six i'm not sure if they said how many prior convictions were actually  requested to be admitted there is can some confusion and fence and this one should very closely look at the record the defense is saying that the two thousand and one prior conviction was not intended to be admitted for impeachment referring to a transcript the hearing that happened after the prosecutor already said that that case would be used for impeachment purposes now so the prosecutors did say they wanted for for impeachment and usually the trial court said right out aggravated bested battery no go so then it became there were three others the burglary was then two thousand name then a trial court postponed this ruling with respect to the two thousand and one the two thousand and four and then the next day ruled by docket entry that those convictions could be used to impeach the defendant so now we got the two thousand one and the two thousand and one was the manufacturing methamphetamine case just before was transporting in hydra simonyan the two thousand and eight was a burglary and all three were admitted i'll be improperly as cross examination of the defendant this man on trial cannot be cross examined about its prior convictions state admits that but it is not per se a reversible error under the madison case the defense has to show they were denied substantial justice and here these convictions were going to come in any way the trial court was allowed them so the jury was going to know about them but the only problem was that the senate was asked to sort of met them on the same and they that the rules say that that's not something that's proper but that doesn't mean that he was denied substantial justice resul so therefore the depor case defined some plain error in this but they didn't say what problem they were applying and in this case is not a first prong plain  position is that the circumstantial evidence of guilt rely most heavily on the defendant's own words which run video editing that of the facts about how he knew that they were making methamphetamine in the trailer and that they needed more meth these people were paranoid and talking in code and that's something that was recognized so this is not the first prong plainer case and it's not per se reversible error so therefore he's not going to get a new trial on that ground  i believe excuse me but it's not automatically reversible either because prosecutor went on to explain right after saying he believed that woman berg was truthful he explained exactly why and call evidence office or their own sort of internal lie detector and order to convince a jury that they that they should believe a witness because the prosecutor has some sort of private knowledge that they didn't hear about now the prosecutor told them why the police grooming berg and by this is why the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that with with some sufficient evidence that long intended to help produce more than one hundred grams to sustain a conviction they're recommending any anything everyone agreed before the testimony occurred that the two thousand and one incident was not coming in as the conviction for impeachment was only on the facts so then when the prosecutor asked long about that specific prior conviction that only added to the already serious error of the improper impeachment scales of justice against long in this case particularly where this court does not reduce the conviction to the lowest form of a quantity element then for the reasons in argument