just briefly renew my request to expand the appeal to include the incredible issue of the statement that my client made to the homicide detective on the night that he was arrested the homicide detective who also was his mormon priest and the manipulation of my client's very strongly held religious beliefs in that case it was voided certification and we just ask that that it be included in the appeal and that the attorney general be asked submit briefing on the issue now back to the certified issue of the prosecutor's misstatement it's our position certainly that the state court act acted on reasonably in ruling that there was no misconduct and that if there was that it was  d by the subsequent instruction by the court a couple of points that i'd like to highlight are that the case the sole defense in the case was self defense or perhaps more importantly in an reasonable self defense interesting long time researching the law trying to come up with precisely they researched the case law and found the law that applied in the fourth point that i'd like to highlight is the prosecutor's kind of unusual announcement that she  intended to do something controversial which we consider to be misconduct during her closing argument and she wanted to be insulated from the defense attacks following that misconduct during some asian i think the first point i think is hopefully is easily dismissed and that's this was not a case where there was law favoring each side's position this was a case where there was only one law that applied and the prosecutor during some nation repeatedly stood that law on its head and again this was preplanned it's our position that the better point your honor i think what's important to note is that the prosecutor kind of short circuited the analysis and told the jury that if you find there was no question that he was the original aggressor in the situation simply by virtue of the fact that he was trespassing in the victim's garage  and what she told the jury to do five times if you find that he was the original aggressor then the instructions on self defense simply don't apply essentially don't read them you don't need to to bother yourselves with these complicated and boring instruction if you find he was the original aggressor they could not make any other finding part of the defense acknowledge that he was the original aggressor but that he will gain the right to claim self defense and so to the extent that what she did short circuited the analysis entirely and took the jury  is that this was a very complicated area the law second that it went to the heart of the defense third the trial court sent a message to any reviewing court when it specifically said i don't think i can fix this this was crucial these were major points in order to fix the courts that i think we need to use the sledgehammer approach and the fourth point on this is the press if we look at the text of the misstatements themselves whereas the prosecutor essentially told the jury don't look at the instructions if you find that is the original and you know you don't have to to do the tough part i think where this fell apart was and perhaps there's never a situation in which the curative instruction can be found to be you know insufficient if that's the case that's the case i don't believe that and i believe here  the level of the remedy that that would cure the problem and what the trial court said was that we need to use a sledgehammer approach what the court needed to do in this achievement situation was not to bury the appropriate language of the law which was a very complicated law in the middle of some instructions which it said i want to clarify some points and it went on and and what this was complicated stuff that the lawyers didn't understand that the judge didn't understand the judge described these instructions the law as an absolute bare it was complicated stuff and i think that in light of the egregious nature of the which the prosecutor had premed this misconduct i think what the court needed to do was either to invite counsel to make additional argument or and we could cure it of instruction itself it could have said ladies and gentlemen we've got a major problem here the prosecutor has misstated the law and very important points and it's important for me to tell you that at this point and we need to say what she said and then what would that was wrong and what is the correct law before you go in there  he he's personally familiar with him and he has to our conversation with him before that or a geisha where he makes you feel the police are his friends no that's a big lie in the interest  them very quickly you don't have to have a cooling off period that's correct but if you're holding a gun and you know you you come upon someone and then later attempt to say that it was all a joke  i would submit that you set up the circumstances which preclude you from denying for relying on the defense of self defense and getting back to this argument by the prosecutor again the confusion in the charge here the trial court put together as counsel has referenced a major sledgehammer to ensure that this jury clearly understood that they that and actual aggressor there were circumstances in which an actual aggressor could rely on the defense of self defense or imperfect self defense and so considering that fact discussed the court labeling it to the jury as the prosecutor made a mistake or whatever this jury received an adequate charge and i would also submit that in light of appellants confession and multiple admissions it is entirely likely that he could have relied on  this defense successfully but again the whole focus by this court is whether or not the jury of whether or not appellant received a fair trial the jury was properly charged w you remember i think your honor i don't think that i'm very much time there's just two points that i'd like to clarify the first is that there was no confession but the statements were made were incriminating statements showing my client's anger toward the victim which were used to convict him but they were by no means a confession secondly i believe that the attorney general misstated the nature of the instruction that was given in the trial court initially said what we need is the sledgehammer approach but then she backed off that position later after finding that the misconduct curiously finding that it was not intentional and she used a more subtle approach and we believe that it was the failure of the failure to use the sledgehammer that is the problem here in just a couple of seconds that's our position the prosecution cheated to present the trial typical and you tell us how many words are contained in your brief if you'll read rule thirty two you are also required to use fourteen point tight and for your information a point just one seventy second of an inch your breath is not fourteen point type i hope we don't see it again your honor i notice that i want to sanction or anything else i just want to let you know ok i did notice that and i do apologize for i think you