definit was the ninety six minute right to confront one of the witnesses against him specifically in this case the state failed to present dr cierra who was the medical examiner who put actually perform the autopsy here instead the state presented dr cokin who neither performed or observed the report is admitted for the truth of the matter asserted when there's no limiting instruction in the least court stated in paragraph sixty seven that in fact it is admitted for the truth of the matter sorted the reason that's important at the confrontation clause won't apply unless the statement is actually ad the truth of the matter asserted so mr brewer is already clear that hurdle the second question that leach court resolved dealt with for future and the police court basically addressed a very similar question as in this case and the question was if the defendant fails to actually object to preserve the issue can review in court actually reach the issue without addressing it as player of the court said that there was no for a pitcher in the each case because the confrontation clause the fundamental constitutional right and i was sixty two the final issue before this court in the one that leach addressed but wasn't resolved fully is whether or not the statements testimonial and that's what i'd like to address primarily today in the lead case the court stated in code of one twenty two the onsets report in the present case was not testimonial however the court emphasized later in the program one thirty six we are not prepared to say that the report of an autopsy conducted by the medical examiners office can and that's the case here if you home brew up side by side with leach their number of important differences first when you look at least you have a case that's the strangulation there were no witnesses it was unclear from the get go if it was an accident it was a suicide  homicide and second place were called to the scene in that case the officer responded not because of the nine one one call based on a shooting or a homicide he responded because of the scenes mother called for a wellness check on her daughter because she hadn't heard from her daughter at that point so please respond to the scene so brazen salles relations but it was unclear the point where there was an accident again a suicide homicide it was uncertain on the other hand in this case when police responded to the scene it was clear from the outset that this is a homicide they received a nine one one call they show up at the scene and they witness what i witnessed reports would start off as a robbery and ended up as a homicide they received clothing descriptions descriptions descriptions of the actual shooting and in fact the student was sitting in his corner it was clear that this wasn't an accident it was clear that it was a homicide so there was no reason to think that the medical examiner was truly trying to determine the cause and manner of death in this case victim and again in this case they knew from the outset that it was a homicide the reason that's important if you're looking at least this autopsy worse again perform truly determine the cause and manner of death to determine whether it was an accident a homicide of suicide that greatly but for the purpose of the confrontation clause though that the question is what is the crime a purpose where you know basically he is the person the forensic examiner whether the person is a medical examiner a person testing that the  there wasn't a certainty at all so that you know there was an ongoing investigation they were still determining whether it was an accident in fact even in leach at the time it reaches trial the primaries in that case whether it was still there was an accident in this case the primary issue was identity  the report is a report it's not a police report might not be quite the right word but it is something from the police informing the medical examiner of the circumstances of the shooting in this case but that standard operating procedure to well be you know based on what the court decided it that's basically what it comes down to is this you know from the outset going into it that this is going to be a homicide case if you know this so there's a potential for you send your criminal prosecution which the test set forth by courts are faced with different facts they do reach a different result from it from each and the each court did leave the store open we don't know again we haven't really had many cases dealing with autopsies since leetch and we don't know how w the door is open we don't know what kind of cases includes but we know that in cases such as bird worst case in cases such as never it where it's clear from the outset that a homicide took place that this was testimonial that this was done with an eye toward trial if in fact the neighborhood court they stated that it was immediately clear that this autopsy was part of a homicide investigation and when that's the case the statement will be testimonial under the primary point it's clear that it is homicide and that this is being created for use in a future criminal prosecution that statute but ultimately the question was would the you know did the defendant actually violate one of the laws so rose actually done with night for trial and if that's the same case here yes in a sense it was to determine what it was causing  death but in a very different sense than in leech you know in lease it was still unclear and even at the time of trial was still argued that it was an accident so there was a question at least whether it was an action that actually an accident or a homicide in this case it was absolutely clear at that point  in going back to your question just just this time in dealing with if you just pick up one thirty three in each you know they do say and then usually based but again we don't know what that what then includes we just know that the facts in this case are quite different throughout the course has been basically the primer that the only thing that's consistently been applied is the primary purpose test which is what we just talked about in terms of crawford and that theory isn't true you know it is a factual determination so it isn't something that can be decided very clearly needs to have  paragraph believe it's one it's one twenty three of leach which discusses what was in the medical examiner case report in leach which specifically said that included information that this was a suspected homicide and that the defendant's excuse me that the victim's husband offend then had admitted to choking his wife and was now in custody so there's no factual that the defense counsel's fact attempt to factually distinguish this case from leach has no merit because they're the medical examiner and leach was just as aware that this was a potential homicide and in fact that there was a particular suspect as in this case but even setting not factual similarity aside the holding in leech in paragraph one thirty six i believe specifically and clearly says that it doesn't matter what the medical examiner knows at the time of the autopsy after finding that autopsy reports and medical examiner reports are not testimonial under any definition of primary purpose the quote goes on to say further an autopsy report prepared in the normal course of business of a medical examiner's office is not rendered testimonial merely because the assistant medical examiner performing the autopsy is aware that police suspect homicide and that a specific individual might be responsible so under leach there's really no wiggle room there the only open door still under leach is the one referred to or referenced by justice hyman  possibly the unusual sick situation where you have a body exuma at the bast of the police for a subsequent autopsy so that's an issue that would probably be explored and future cases but beyond that you have a medical examiner performing an n in the split that's out there every state has different statutes defining what the roles of their corners of medical examiners are so that's something that has certainly guided i think decisions in different in different states and in some states the coroner medical examiner is more closely tied with law enforcement than here that could be part of it and then there's also just disagreement and notably the leach court in paragraphs one thirty three and one thirty four acknowledge that split so the court you know the each court was aware that there's a difference of opinion out there but has declared that the law in illinois is that medical examiner reports are not testimonial except under those unusual circumstances  i think that i would also just point out that the defendant's argument regarding again that it was that somehow if the court should look to whether it's absolutely clear that it's a homicide at the time the medical examiner  it was an accident and in a gunshot one case you could have a defendant claim that he was acting in self defense so i would say that that's really no different than that i think points out you know the one of the problems in defense argument and probably guided the leach court's decision so unless there are any other questions i would just argue that which controls and the court should again that was still the issue at trial whether it was an accident or a homicide conversing in this case we have something that was again it was clear from the outset that this was a homicide as soon as police responded to the scene they had witnesses describing the shooters they had witnesses describing the