unconFrontedstatements
Whather a victims
to police wre admissible at trial onthe grounds

of unavailability by forfeiture where no affirmcaused +he witness unavailatilityand the proseutionfaeto perforduediincence bne
appearance.
Right to Controntation
whather evidenct wed to take my rights awny
at the hearing was even ollowed undenthe
Same issue as adover chain of commaal of the
Statements used from other ageicy not prerent at
the heain. Aliene rn thig
−
wat unconfronted, and in the form of one invest.
said to him Mearsey-ontop of hewy.
G1
Whether dhis
402 Learing
waseven timely
gren the fact that this da/ July 16 2015 was
tricl doyf This 462 heariny wes heard the 5ome
Appealent hod no opport unit, to pvepert for
doy.

uestions
froented
Did the Defendant get proper Represthtation?
The Atorney continnally gotconfinaenles tofad
Withness duf continnelly fails toeven /ook forkim.
Did the Atorey peform his dues by continuelly
Fiing untinely Motions that were daned sevry
hurming The Deferdants Defense
Did Atorney perfor Lis duties by not Filing
a Merorand um of points a ad Anthorst'es to
Strike piors that Defendant had goter written
up and guve to his Atorny tofile The Atony
Failed to file sald motion. Fven thoughit Nould
not heve changedthe out come or Trial. It
Would hv drasticatly redned fissentence
motionis atacked

Whether the victim's statements to police are admissible at trial on the grounds of unavailability