-: SJC-13006,
Commonwealth V Shawn Lessieur.
-: Okay,
Attorney Dehmand?
-: Yes, your honor.
Budd: Is that how you say it?
-: Dehmand, thank you.
Budd: Dehmand.
-: Good morning.
May it please the court,
my name is Sharon Dehmand,
for Mr. Shawn Lessieur.
This case is before the court on two issues,
both of which, alone or in combination,
present newly-discovered evidence,
that were substantial,
and if presented to the jury,
it would have been real factor,
in the jury's deliberations.
As the court is aware,
this case was a cold case,
and it was resurrected after 12 years,
based on the testimony, of one witness.
And that one witness was the co-defendant,
Nolan Surprenant.
At the time of the crime in 1994,
there were a number of physical evidence collected
from the scene,
none of which yielded any de--
Man: SJC-13006 Commonwealth v. Shawn Lessieur.
(mumbling)
-: Yes.
Yes, your honor.
Dehmand, thank you.
Woman: Oh, we're hearing a repeat?
-: Good morning.
Good morning, your honor.
If it please the court.
My name is Sharon Dehmand.
Man: There is maybe feedback, if you-
Man: She needs to turn off her feed,
it's a minute behind.
(mumbles)
-: Does somebody have their,
feed on?
You just have to turn down the Suffolk feed
-: The Suffolk webcast.
Dehmand: Presented to the jury,
it would have been a real factor-
-: Cause that's behind.
Dehmand: As the court is aware,
this case was a cold case.
Man: I think attorney Dehmand has her feed on.
-: Am I?
-: Yeah if you could just turn down,
if you have the Suffolk feed, on.
Turn the volume down, up on that.
Dehmand: At the time of the crime in 1994,
There were a number of,
physical evidence collected.
I don't have a feed-
Budd: Oh you don't.
-: I don't.
Woman: Yes.
-: I'm sorry, should I?
Good morning your honor,
-: It's so strange.
It's repeating now.
Man: Yeah it's just repeating.
Man: If we could ask,
maybe (indistinct),
whether she has the Suffolk feed on.
-: Does somebody have their,
feed on?
Have to turn down the Suffolk feed.
Because that's behind.
-: Oh, it appears that it's disappeared from me,
has it disappeared for everyone else?
-: I'm not hearing.
-: Are we still on?
-: Yeah we're still on so,
Budd: Okay.
-: Why don't we,
why don't you just begin again.
-: Okay.
May it please the court,
Sharon Dehmand,
for Mr. Shawn Lessieur.
This case if before the court,
on two issues.
Both of which, alone,
or in combination.
Presents newly discovered evidence.
Which are substantial
and if presented to this jury,
it would have been a real factor,
in deliberations.
This was essentially a cold case.
That went cold,
and was resurrected after 12 years,
based on the testimony of one witness,
and that was,
Mr. Norlyn Suprenant,
the co-defendant in this case.
In 1994, at the time of the crime,
there were physical evidence collected at the scene.
None of which amounted,
to much,
with the exception of,
"mixture of blood in the snow"
Which yielded DNA,
which is the subject of,
this appeal here today.
The evidence collected from the scene,
was collected by the crime lab,
under pristine conditions and stored.
It was tested originally in 2002,
using Profiler Plus.
And it indeed yielded, a mixture,
and there was testimony before the jury,
that said that,
it was more than one profile of DNA.
And I quote,
the comments said,
"it was predominant profile"
"other than the mixture,"
"belonged to, predominantly to the "
"to the deceased in this case"
No other testimony was given,
so the jury was left,
with this mixture if you will.
That it had more than one profile in it,
and then it was silent, to the rest of it.
Then in 2018,
the same mixture was tested,
using powerplex fusion.
Far superior technology,
designed for degregated
and contaminated evidence using (indistinct)
10 cells.
And indeed it yielded,
a secondary DNA profile,
it yielded, one allele in one (indistinct)
that excluded, Mr. Lessieur,
the defendant, and it also excluded-
-: Counsel may I ask you a question about that?
Dehmand: Of course.
-: One of the things the judge said,
was that, there was nothing showing,
or at least, the (indistinct) was saying,
arguing this,
there's nothing showing,
how this evidence was linked to the,
to the murder.
Can you elaborate on that.
What this link is?
How we know that this blood is linked to the murder.
-: Absolutely.
Cypher: Thank you.
-: So,
your honors,
at the time of the crime,
we have, undisputed testimony,
that, there was heavy snow,
and it had just snowed.
The snowing had ended,
one of the independent eye witnesses was out,
clearing the snow.
And the body was found,
on top of fresh snow.
Now, the first time,
the EMT's and the police officers,
went to the scene looking for the body,
they couldn't fine the body.
10 to 15 of search,
they could not find the body.
Because it was pitch dark,
a cold night in March,
after, freshly fallen snow.
The second time they came out,
that's when they found, the body.
This particular, DNA sample,
was next to the body,
on top of the snow.
Where the body fell,
also on top of the snow.
Therefore, I would suggest to the court,
in combination,
you have a deceased,
on a snowy night.
Cold, fresh snow,
behind the building,
in a secluded area, pitch dark.
So who else would be there your honors,
other than, the assailant,
and the deceased in this case.
And-
-: Well counsel this is the thing about, that.
You make a point in your brief that,
you say this is exculpatory evidence,
and, these are real speculations,
because there aren't any other dots to connect,
other than,
we found this other DNA profile in this allele.
So it has to be,
that it was the assailant,
but, there isn't anything else to tether that to,
I make that, point,
because in situations where this court,
has overturned convictions in the past.
There is in some tether,
to the new DNA evidence,
to some other physical piece of evidence,
to say, this would have been a real factor.
This is, in and of itself you are saying,
that it's a real factor,
just by virtue of,
we have this other DNA profile.
So it's gotta be a real factor
because it had to have been the other person,
that did this.
But there's no other physical evidence,
or no other evidence at all that tethers,
this particular new allele,
to anything else in this case.
Can you explain that?
-: Respectfully there is.
We have the Commonwealth's own witness,
who said,
that the defendant and the victim,
went to the location under a ruse of,
urinating.
We have, right.
We also have the body,
that is discovered with the zipper open,
and his penis outside his body.
Collaborating the fact that there was,
attempt of urination,
or there was urination.
We also have,
The newly discovered,
the newly discovered evidence,
the affidavit of, another witness,
that was introduced by the police,
six different times.
That does put,
two people at the scene of this crime.
So does Suprenant,
so does the co defendant,
however,
he takes away from his role,
as merely being the driver of the des-
-: Well, Suprenant says,
the victim and the defendant went back there.
No other third party.
The other person that you're speaking of,
if multiple versions of,
whatever it is that she said,
she remembered.
So again, Suprenant doesn't put a third person there.
His testimony doesn't put a third person there.
His testimony puts the descendant
and the deceased, there.
-: Well your honor,
his testimony is the whole point of this.
It is his testimony,
and his testimony alone,
that the Commonwealth put this crime on.
And he if you will,
was the third party culprit in this case.
He essentially,
distanced himself.
From the situation by saying,
it was just Mr. Lessieur at the scene,
however, the whole crux of the defense here,
was a third party culprit.
Was that either Suprenant,
in combination with another person,
or alone, committed this crime.
So, if we look at this at the vacuum,
of trying to give credibility to Mr. Suprenant,
that he said well,
Mr. Lessieur and the victim were the only people there,
then sure.
But Mr. Suprenant,
managed to get himself a three year-
-: Did an independent witness,
hear a gunshot,
and see just see one person?
Fully, essentially.
-: No your honor, the independent.
Which independent,
are you speaking of Miss Gazep,
or are you speaking of Mr. Bulow.
-: The name escapes me,
I thought I had,
read that there was gunshot,
and there was one person that left.
Two people, but only one person leaves.
-: There was testimony of Mr. Bulow,
that was clearing snow.
That said he saw somebody in the driver's seat.
And then he heard gun shots,
and saw somebody run into the car,
and then the car drove of.
-: Okay, Bulow was the person I was thinking of.
-: Okay.
BUt then there is testimony,
or there is,
there are statements made,
by Miss Gazep, that,
at the time said,
that again,
admittedly some inconsistencies,
in her testimony.
But one thing they-
-: Let me get you to the,
I think what might be the crux of the issue.
The issue was whether or not,
the DNA is relevant,
to the identity of the perpetrator, correct?
-: That is correct.
-: And,
so as to be real fact and were to introduce a trial,
we have lots of cases,
where there are cigarettes at the side of the road,
in a public area where we say that wasn't a factor,
that was in a different context.
If there were beer bottles in the woods,
where kids went to drink,
and a body was found,
those beer bottles could be anywhere.
On the other side of that,
could be where the police observe someone,
they chase someone he discards a hat.
And they test the hat and it comes back with a profile.
Here we have a strange scene where,
the person is shot,
there's a blood stain,
presumably obviously from a gunshot.
It's overwhelmingly, the victim's blood,
and then with sophisticated tests,
then we have a stray allele
Of course it doesn't have to be blood,
it could be anything.
But we don't know what it is,
so, where does this stray allele
within the victim's blood
and the crime scene fit,
on the scenarios I gave you.
-: So, your honor,
again, in combination of the circumstances,
if you look at it in a vacuum,
I would agree with the court.
However, this,
this is not a vacuum.
-: I didn't pose it as an answer,
I'm asking you.
You don't have to agree with me,
'cause I didn't give you an answer.
So where does it fit?
-: Okay.
Where it fits is indeed,
in line with the cases where this much,
this is very much a private setting.
Because of the setting of this case,
because of the location.
Admittedly it's open to public,
being under the sky.
However, at the time of this crime,
being pitch dark,
being in a location,
where, again.
People, trained people,
EMT and police officers,
going looking for the body,
couldn't have found the body.
By the time the body was found the second time,
it was partially frozen.
And again, in the secluded area,
but for,
the body itself
and the evidence found.
Now I suggest that they also found,
a marijuana cigarette next to the body,
which came back to the DNA of the victim.
So, that was,
that was nother piece of evidence,
that was at the crime scene,
at that time,
that belonged to the victim,
and victim alone,
and there is this blood,
in freshly fallen snow,
that is right next to the body.
But for the victim and whoever else was there,
it wouldn't have belonged to someone else,
in pitch dark, under those circumstances,
in a cold night.
-: Counsel, can I ask you a question?
How, if at all was this freshly falling snow,
analysis used at the trial?
-: I suggest to the court,
it was barely (indistinct),
and it wasn't really,
because the DNA was not, tested any further,
there was no testimony regarding this fresh snow.
The only,
well the testimony about this snow,
came through the police officers saying,
the snow had just fallen,
it was heavy snow-
-: I guess I should be more clear,
how is the DNA used, at the first,
at the trial?
-: So the DNA evidence,
was essentially silent at first trial.
The DNA evidence, through the testimony,
was essentialy,
there was more,
than one profile of DNA type present,
in this mixture.
And that, there was,
and I quote,
"There was a major profile,"
"or a more predominant profile,"
"than the other,"
"and the major profile,"
"belonged to the deceased."
-: But wasn't it open to defense counsel,
to argue?
Because usually, when there's just blood at the scene,
it is the victim's blood.
The DNA is so what.
Right so, if you get a bloody shirt of a victim,
and he's been stabbed,
and they test the blood,
and the blood of the victim,
that's a big so what.
But it's not a so what,
when there's a minor profile.
So didn't defense counsel at trial,
have the ability to argue,
the same as you are,
hey there's a minor profile here,
its got to be someone other than the victim?
-: Well, yes and no, your honor.
Because the minor profile was not tested,
the technology, wasn't available,
so it was essentially silent.
And as much as defense counsel could use it,
said, you know,
this is silent.
But here,
we have the newly discovered evidence,
where the defense counsel could have argued,
if it was presented to the jury,
that, look at this,
this is,
this excludes, Mr. Lessieur from the profile.
-: So the answer could be that,
the minor profile,
could have come back to the defendant,
but they could reach no conclusions on it.
So that's why,
it wasn't available to the defendant.
-: Exactly, it's in line with cases,
where the evidence was silent
and inconclusive at the time of the trial,
versus now, we have the evidence that says,
it wasn't the defendant in fact.
So it could have been argued to the jury,
that no, the defendant was not there,
there was someone else there.
-: So the defendant,
could have argued into his (indistinct)
if he had said,
there was a profile,
cause it could have come back to him.
Anyway, we don't like,
we don't like lawyers to argue inconclusive,
test results.
But here,
you do have,
for lack off a better term,
a stray allele.
-: Precisely,
precisely your honor.
And if you, use that,
newly discovered evidence,
with, in the combination,
with combination of the only witness of this case,
Who's credibility the juror relied on,
to make this conviction,
that is an indirect contradiction.
That contradicted-
-: Well counsel,
that goes to the second point.
So this is what the court below,
had in front of them, considering this, right?
And so,
if we're now looking at this and saying,
the stray allele has some, probative,
force, that the jury would have considered,
and it has to be looked at in combination with,
the other person that put's a third person there.
And that other person,
is chuck full of credibility problems.
How could we say the combination of the two,
militates in favor,
of a new trial?
Where that witness,
gave, all kinds of versions,
of this story that,
has real issues.
-: Well, yes she did,
however, one thing never changed,
throughout her entire statement she made.
She brought the victim to the location.
That one point,
is in direct contradiction, to the witness in this case.
-: Well, at one point.
But you say that,
but at one point in one of her versions,
she said that the victim was shot in the car.
-: That's true but again,
in that version she also drove him to that location.
He got into a car.
So again,
even when you look at the contradictions,
that she gave,
one thing remained consistent.
All six interviews, via her affidavit,
she brought the victim into the place.
In fact it was based on her interviews,
that the police, determined the timeline,
of the victim being in that location.
So that, even if we,
discount everything else she said,
that one point, I'll suggest to the court,
would have been sufficient to directly contradict,
the one witness in this case,
that managed to get three year sentence,
out of a murder charge.
So, he had everything,
to gain, in order to frame,
Mr. Lessieur, he was-
-: Isn't the problem one of speculation?
Because,
nobody knows how this.
'Cause overwhelmingly, is this blood in the snow,
it's the victim's of course.
But nobody knows how this,
genetic material ended up within that, mixture.
So to get back to the standard, of,
it being a real factor to jury,
we have to engage in lots of speculation,
unlike,
you know, skin cells on a hat,
or a handler DNA on a knife.
This involves a lot of speculation,
doesn't that inhibit your argument,
about it being a real factor to the jury?
-: No your honor,
I disagree with that.
Again, going back, and I think it's important to-
-: The DA could argue well it's contamination.
Let's test the entire crime lab, who knows.
-: Well, it isn't,
because of the collection of this,
of this specimen, I would suggest.
And in fact,
it's very important to distinguish this case,
from the Chico case, that my sister relies upon.
Because in that particular case,
is exactly what your honor is saying.
And this court when upheld the new trial motion,
essentially said,
it was a gene collected at the hospital,
given to the police,
than from the police brought to the trial,
then being part of exhibit,
and then being held in plastic bags,
for many years before it was tested.
That is in direct contradiction to what we have here.
We crime scene on, the scene collecting,
the evidence.
Putting it in a test tube,
then it's held under pristine lab conditions,
in a freezer.
It's not a pair of genes where it changed hands.
It's a tube,
it's being held in a crime lab,
under lab conditions,
no one else had access.
Other than when it was sent to (indistinct)
for the testing in 2018.
So I suggest to the court,
this is star contrast to cases such as the Chico,
where there was argument made as for contamination.
There is no contamination here,
plus, if you add that to the testing,
that was done here,
which was the Powerplex.
Which is designed, for degraded and contaminated specimen.
Would leave this court to conclude,
that this would,
this does have tie,
this is a material piece of evidence.
And again especially when considering it,
with other evidence in this case,
and commonwealth's weak case based on one witness,
who had everything to gain,
and nothing to loose essentially,
by framing Mr.Lessieur.
I would suggest that the court,
the conclusion has to be reached-
Budd: We're gonna stop you there.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you.
Budd: And move on to attorney Speight.
-: Good morning may it please the court,
Haile White Speight,
Assistant District Attorney for Middlesex,
on behalf of the Commonwealth.
If I can just,
pick up where my sister left off,
with the question of contamination
and the way in which this case,
falls into the sort of continuum of,
new evidence DNA cases.
The chain of custody issue,
The Commonwealth doesn't dispute that that,
sample was handled properly once it was collected.
On the other end my sister relies,
heavily on the fact that,
the body was found, in an isolated area.
Although, it was next to the dumpster.
People put things in dumpsters all the time,
and people pick up trash from dumpsters all the time.
What made the body hard to find was not,
so much the isolation of the area,
as that it was really dark.
But, even if it was an isolated area,
before the body was found,
it was plenty busy once the body was discovered.
You had the person who found the body,
you have now fewer than four,
emergency medical, personnel.
Who are performing CPR on the victim,
they, tried to assist the victim,
they sort of shake him,
to find out if he is responsive,
they take a pulse,
they roll the body,
and that's when they find the blood stain,
in the snow.
There are a number of police officers,
on the scene.
There are personnel from crime scene services.
None of these people as far as we know,
are wearing Hazmat suits.
Any one of them could have dropped,
a couple of skin cells that,
find their way into this blood sample.
The fresh snow ice submit is a red herring,
there was testimony that it had snowed,
maybe that day.
Maybe the day before,
it was not snowing that night,
it was not snowing at the time of the murder.
I think that the evidence is pretty clear on that.
So, while it's true that you have,
some chain of custody issues in the Chico,
that you don't have in this case.
You have the same, problem,
that the defendant needs to meet his burden,
to show,
in a none speculative fashion,
that this single allele,
was deposited both at the time of the crime,
and by the perpetrator of the crime.
Otherwise, it's simply not relevant.
It cannot be a real factor,
in the jury's deliberation.
This was,
and this was never a DNA case,
your honors.
And this evidence isn't enough to make it,
a DNA case.
-: It wasn't a DNA case,
'cause there was no exculpatory DNA.
-: Well there,
no there was no exculpatory DNA-
-: You don't have the strongest case in the World,
because you have a cooperating witness,
inherently correct?
-: Absolutely and that was,
extensively explored, at the trial.
Nolan Supernant was cross examined for an entire day.
-: Right, but this would be evidence,
you would admit that,
this would be evidence you'd have to explain a way,
at trial were it to come in, correct?
-: No, I think for this evidence to come in,
in the first place,
to survive a relevance trial-
-: You're telling me a judge would exclude this?
-: I'm telling you the defendant has to make,
a none speculative case.
-: Okay so we have the DNA-
-: Otherwise this is-
Otherwise it has no probative value and-
-: Let me ask the question.
Speight: Sorry.
-: You have the DNA expert on the stand,
with a nice fancy chart.
And the chart says,
we rolled the victim over,
there was a blood stain under the body,
and there was a major profile of a victim.
That comes in, right.
-: Right.
-: And, you're telling me the judge would say,
don't let them explain that there was a minor profile,
that doesn't match anybody else.
That's excluded?
-: I think there is,
I think there is a vey strong possibility,
given that there's a serious risk of-
-: I'd like to meet,
that superior court judge who excludes that.
-: Without some showing, of how it got there,
it's not coming in.
And if it comes in,
the Commonwealth's DNA expert explains,
well there were EMTs all over the place,
there's a phenomenon known as, transfer,
secondary transfer.
It could have come from the victim's clothes.
There is simply nothing beyond speculation,
to show, that this allele belongs to the murderer.
-: Let's just assume for the sake of argument that,
it's going to come in.
Sure, yeah I think it's going to come in,
is there anything about the nature of, killing,
that would suggest,
that you would have,
the defendant's blood on scene.
-: No.
This wasn't a , you know,
this wasn't a knife fight.
Where, the defendant might have been,
or the killer might have been cut.
This isn't a rape,
where you're gonna expect to find the,
perpetrator's DNA.
This was a shooting.
And,
so there is no, none speculative reason,
why the killer would have left DNA behind.
And as for the question for whether he was urinating,
the defendant himself,
just acknowledged that this was a ruse,
to get the victim into this isolated spot.
And if you're going to use a ruse like that,
say get of the,
he got out of the car,
according to Norlyn Suprenant,
he got out of the car said,
I'm gonna go take a piss.
That's a great way to get somebody out by the dumpster,
so you can shoot him.
But,
I remind the court the only evidence,
that he even said that,
is the testimony,
of the witness,
that the defendant said,
was making it all up to frame the defendant.
-: I was the single Justice,
so I allowed this to go forward.
So,
I was perhaps more bothered by the witness,
than I was by the allele.
We've got all the evidence here against the defendant,
one takes years to catch this defendant.
And, this other witness,
although she's got all kinds of problems.
She's supposedly, you know,
there's clear evidence she's there.
And she, identifies different people, right?
Including, one of the suspects, right?
I mean, I'm just remembering this, 'cause-
-: There's no evidence beyond-
-: Let me finish posing this.
They don't.
I mean she may have been a,
a really,
a witness with a lot of problems,
cause she gave lot's of different versions of this thing.
But, she's all they've got,
and they don't go with her.
And now have an in-effective assistant's claim here.
How do we deal with that part of this case,
because, you've got one witness too, right?
Who's also got his problems,
cause he just got a three year sentence for a murder.
So, tell me why it's not an effective assistant's take,
to ride the only horse you got to this.
-: Okay, as trial counsel,
said in his affidavit.
His strategy,
was in fact to,
rely on attacking Suprernat's credibility.
And saying that, you know he was a compromised witness,
he's getting the benefit of a really good deal,
he's not credible.
Gale (indistinct) was a drug addict,
on a day pass from the psych ward,
the only evidence that she was there,
is her own statement.
-: Well, I thought she actually,
she identifies two people,
one who looked different from this guy.
And also one of whom was a suspect for a while.
Was he a suspect for reasons besides her
or was it just-
-: I think no, because she,
she looked at a picture
and said that's the guy that I saw.
But, we still don't have any evidence,
beyond her own statement,
that she was even there.
She describes a car,
that's nothing like,
the car that (indistinct) saw.
-: (indistinct) gets the color
and the car wrong too, right?
-: But she says it had a,
It was sporty, and it had been worked on,
and it looked good.
And it had a spoiler,
and it had neon on the bottom of it.
-: I understand, I just,
it's the case in which,
you know both,
this is not as Justice Gaziano said,
a said where you've got a lot of evidence either.
I'm just trying to,
sort through the two,
two sort of mediocre cases and,
why you don't use at least what you've got,
you know.
But again,
I don't wanna (indistinct) it, but I just,
so she's from the psych ward,
is that right?
-: She said she was committed for observation,
she was out on a day pass-
-: She was a drug addict, right?
-: I hear it's referenced somewhere somewhere
in one of the statements to a psych facility.
-: But you can be in a psyche facility,
if you're a drug addict, too right?
-: By her own account,
she's smoking crack that day.
One statement she says,
I climbed over the snow bend,
and I saw, them shoot the victim,
inside the car.
Which we know didn't happen, okay.
We know from the physical evidence tell us,
that didn't happen.
So in another statement, she says-
-: She's in the right location, right?
-: She say's she's in the right location,
we don't know that she was there.
There's absolutely no evidence to collaborate,
her statement, that she was there.
-: So there's nothing,
when we go back to this record.
And again it's been a while,
since I've read this record.
We're gonna find nothing,
that connects her to this location?
Or, we just wanna make sure,
you're not over stating it.
-: I don't think I am.
-: Okay, all right.
-: I don't recall any testimony,
of anybody seeing a second car,
in that area,
or a second car drive away.
And her stories are not,
it's not a minor discrepancy,
to say in one statement.
-: No I understand her.
She's a real mixed bag at best.
But so is your witness,
that's the problem I've got.
-: Here's another thought though.
She can't,
she and the defendant can't make up their minds,
who the third party is here.
You know, it was Norlyn,
it was Denis Landice,
it was some Dominican dude,
with a torn ear lobe,
that she could somehow magically see from 15 feet away.
It was the guy in these pictures,
that I drew here.
Somebody stole from me but then I found them.
It's beyond not adding up.
And the one thing she never says,
even in her current affidavit,
the one thing she never says is,
I know Shawn Lessieur and that wasn't him.
I was shown a photo of Shawn Lessieur,
that's not the man I saw.
She never says that.
-: I thought she describes,
he's a blonde, Shawn Lessieur's a blonde,
she describes a person different, you know-
-: She describes one of them as being blonde.
I think Denis Landice is blonde.
But,
it cannot have been, manifestly unreasonable,
if your investigator can't quickly turn up,
the person who made the statements.
Where the statements are so wildly different.
And the witness is so wildly compromised.
It cannot be manifestly unreasonable,
not to move heaven and earth to find that witness.
Budd: You all set?
-: Yes,
I just wanna remind the court,
the defendant has the burden,
not just to show that this evidence is relevant,
to the crime.
That is, that it was deposited by the perpetrator.
But that it is potent, pertinent,
and credit worthy to fundamental issues in the case.
And your honor he flanks at least
two out of three parts of that test.
So I ask this court,
to affirm the denial for the motion of a retrial.
Thank you.
-: Thank you very much.
We'll take our morning break.
-: All rise.