ladies and gentlemen our first case of the morning is one one nine one six two people of the state of all my versus james e grant are you ready to proceed happily ready prior evaluation but also the state has an opportunity or an application i'm sorry to make sure that the public is protected from sexual dangerous person until such time as they're there what about the defendant having the same opportunity to have an expert pointed as may present testimony and evidence from an expert retained to conduct a review only of his records and not a person in this case the respondent did cooperate and the state would like to have their own the fact that that the sexually violent persons commitment act specifically really provides for this in a sexually dangerous persons act doesn't it what doesn't that indicate that when the legislature wanted to provide for say so what is it reasonable to construe that section nine c is referring to this examiner when it mentions the state's examiner since the only examiner mentioned pryor was the one appointed by the department of speak to communicate with or otherwise fails to cooperate with the state examiner another those facts apply here he did not refuse to cooperate or communicate or speak to crack or to act argument simply that that he refused to cooperate with the states examiner you know so if that doesn't apply your alternative argument is generally the court's discretion outside of the statute that's right given these is it your position i am not sure i understand this clearly stated in this case did move for the appointment with examiner you couch your issues in terms of the state should have the right to retain an example can the state do this outside of the requesting permission from the court simply hiring an examiner and bringing that person in the service without court approval yes you we are going to touch upon your burden of proof her to me i can't well let me ask the specific question that because you argue don't do even needed an independent examination because you have the burden of proof and  what if the expert if you were allowed to have an expert that the court appointed for you had also concluded that the respondent should be released would you then have been entitled since you still have that burden and with that expert that burden is not fulfilled so the appointment of additional experts until you find one is of the right route responded should remain in custody but your same argument would apply i mean a burden argument could be made that so we still have the burden and then you then you petition for another expert that would still be allowed the same argument w state to get a second opinion to the state reiterating its brief that the act allows them to retain an expert i just want to point out that in the states motion in the trial court they saw a few women in the order that was entered in the trial of the statute to conclude that the state's examiner means those actors had it meant something else the legislature very easily could have inserted language in there just as in the section violent person the is true about it's inconsistent he wasn't complying so forth and so on but they said release and how how do they go about maintaining their burden of proof or showing he still should be that they found him to have a specialism women's undergarments and personality change due to a condition either a closed head injury or some other development now it's not a consistent it's been consistent throughout this serious singulars talking about the states examiner where she said there's reference to the evaluate tourist being plural so that the ninth seed is not is not talking about the evaluat nine c provides a nap because who refused to speak with her fails to cooperate can only introduce the next her professional baseball to review the records could your expert have done that without having him or her examined responded here ye