of communicating with three individuals who were involved in a jury selection process outside the courthouse these three individuals who may or may not have been wearing badges identifying them as jurors or prospective the reason it is overbroad is because it reaches any speech or any communication intended to influence jurors in their actions as jurors that is essentially the language of the alaska statute that conduct and after the speech was likely to achieve this result but such a construction has not been given at nord ost is there specific language in the statute that require kind of determination made by the united states supreme court involved individuals who were picketing and the prohibition of the ordinance involved there was was essentially a prohibition against picketing and it talked about how  challenge does it follow that the supreme court law doesn't wouldn't condemn a prohibition of individualized contact with jurors well i think the reason is we could be potentially right to public advocacy and the right to refuse fair trial and this is a prohibition requiring criminal sanctions which extends to virtually any communication anywhere to anyone who might have been even thomas to a jury und the language of the statute so we have the possibility that even a friend's harm asked to a prospective juror having heard that they've been asked to come in for jury duty even a friend's comment about how you don't have to listen to talks about how all a chance to communication whether or not they're basically students value tory ends or corrupting ends are necessarily going to be encompassed in pretentiously prohibited by the statute and specific suggestion as to whether or not the defendant should be convicted or not convicted or what those results should be in a criminal case those are and we don't have any kind of limitation here we have basically even  comments made by someone such as never trust anything a judge says or a defense lawyer says or why actually asked the judge if you can do this or that all of those attempts to even if they're well intentioned and necessarily punishable under mr attorneys arguing against the very thing that was afforded to him and that was a fair trial he was given a fair trial and his jury can bring charges based on the evidence presented only in open court and based on right to counsel and mr tourney's trial no one was whispering to call this number so you can know what your rights are no one was going after jurors who were similar things he understands why in the words of the supreme court we don't allow private talk with jurors and how do we know this well the reason we know this is because we're here in obviously they thought that that would affect the fairness of the proceeding it seems to me a little at least from my perspective or a little of field of the issues we have to address well you can do spend your time whatever you want but surely not really interested in wh climb recused or whatever and why that happened i just want to know what the issue is that we have to decide ok well the point i was trying to make is that that interaction occurred years before he has to know that he's doing it in a particular case it has to be done in a particular case and more importantly he has to be specifically intending to influence the outcome of th criminal jury i want to give you my advice you don't have to follow the law you can tell the fire the law if you want american tradition so let's say that happen the next door neighbor be prosecuted under the statute and if so is there an appreciable amount of should that be protected speech or is that not protected and if it is next door neighbor go to jail for that comment ok for that particular comment i do not believe he would be would be guilty of going or hurt be subject to prosecution under the statute and the reason is if you read the alaska supreme court's opinion they talk about how it's critical that the diff the defendant be through his communication should be protected by the first amendment well and i would submit that there isn't if you are acting with these three elements that there isn't the outcome of that particular case yes then you say it doesn't have rejection right and i think the one of the judge just brought up the cox case and i don't read know is not protected by the first amendment so they're drawing that parallel saying it's not protected by the first amendment and the appellant relies heavily on judge manheimer is opinion after a higher court the alaska supreme court had already passed on the constitutionality of the statute and if you look at that particular  over breath issue and the question is whether or not various applications even with the narrowing restrictions the supreme court has placed on that do we still reach protected speech and i think the