been proven. if it hasn't been proven as the instruction tells you, it is just not there. you can't consider it. you can't fill in the gaps. you can't connect the dots for the state attorney's office in this case. you're not allowed to. >> paul, how effective is that? how effective is it to keep reminding a jury not to make assumptions? >> i think it was very effective in the case like this where the jury doesn't have the entire story. there are gaps in the story. there are inconsistencies in the story. i think it is a very smart defense strategy to point out to the jury don't fill in those gaps. don't make up what you think might have happened or what could have happened because that obviously leads them to evaluating the cases a little more stringently and puts them in a position where they're more likely to come up with a perspective of reasonable doubt or not guilt think this case so i thought it was very effective to point them in that directions