directed the jury to find these provocation mitigators, which it did. In looking at Green versus United States and the courts, the high court out of the state of Texas and the federal circuits in Kennedy versus Washington on this constitutional issue, I believe that the authority uh exists to find that collateral estoppel would preclude the defendant from having to prove these mitigators a second time to a different jury because he preserved the issue by requesting the jury instruction for the mitigators on all of the applicable counts, and he didn't request that the jury -- or concede to permit the jury to be discharged without considering those mitigators, when the jury didn't consider them and the additional counts, it acted almost as an applied acquittal