expert who testified that order to choke someone to death it requires certain pounds of pressure and it has to actually continuous pressure for self defense which contradicts your position that if you're thinking about what he described has been happening to him in this moment he got home he got into a fight this fight escalated into something on the floor and then something came over him and you have to imagine his feelings in that moment he's scared he's panicked he's angry he doesn't doesn't know what's happening possibly as he explained it he was out of it so it might seem like an extended period of time where you can't possibly without the mental be without the mental state to deliberately do this he moved in could not stop right he was doing so as we said that's that's his statement he said he lost it he couldn't stop these facts show that his mental state was is sound evidence to support that instruction and they are going to discuss there was some evidence allen's own statement read some mental state which goes to involuntary manslaughter for the trial or a fact in leach the trial court because it was a bench trial got to hear the facts that were similar to the u s and its him and whether or not it was st degree murder involuntary manslaughter in this case alan chose to go with a jury trial but unfortunately because of the trial judge's decision about whether or not the jury should hear instructs involuntary manslaughter he didn't even get the benefit of having the trial arafat in his own case decide whether or bizarre statement that he said that when he began to choke or he lost it and that he wanted to stop but that he couldn't and that something came over him just a cliche these his statements suggested that there was a mental moves us to the nd part of this argument which is that the trial court erred when it did not allow the entirety of this conversation with this family into evidence he said that after he killed nikki and left the again the statement that he said i can repeat and precluded the defense and presenting the rest of his conversation with her sister and his nephew which now only going to provide evidence for way the jury could have considered whether or not this is fresh degree murder or through their testimony where the only thing we have is right so when i told the police in her statement and according to the statement she said that he said i killed mickey and that he was crying but he also said that he was sorry and that he didn't mean it about was whether or not we could get away from the police so not only was he not allowed to present his entire defense as saying you know there's also this evidence showing that i didn't have the intent to do this would you interpret opportunity to even consider this they did not hear it but he said i didn't mean it they didn't hear that he said he was sorry i live they heard was that he said i could make it and that he was upset that's substantially different than hearing someone say i had passed out and continue to choke her until she died so there was no mutual there was no recklessness and involuntary manslaughter instruction was not warranted in this case based on these facts of this case and you as we all know that the medical to the argument the trial for properly exercised especially tonight the defense mostly eliminate to introduce the entirety of this a statement to his sister defense counsel credibly noted that he said i didn't mean to mitigating factor in this conviction turning into nd degree murder as i said i think this is a case of involuntary manslaughter that because the square has had the ability to reduce a conviction if they think the fact sure that i would argue that yes this could also be seen as a case of nd degree murder because unlike leach where you know that evidence showed that there was no there was no sign of struggle in same time go by the same circumstances i can't see how you separate i cured mickey from the fact that he then said i didn't mean it i'm sorry all of that comes into debtors talking about the same thing and and while there may also be other things in that statement which could have been detrimental to the fans he wasn't still entitled to present it to the jury and they were still entitle to hear it and that should have been part of his as an interest to then bring to the jury and say