depending on like craig schedule your honor maybe i can actually say that i would be able to do that at this point but be that as it may i'm going to a couple of things first of all there is evidence in the record now that days after the booker decision issued to get her to i mean for some or adverse all to get her reset and saying thinking that you know obviously moving to x you know knowing that i was going to be exploring these things in greater detail i suppose that's one way i guess it would be yes i mean those cases don't really talk about that and it seems just from my review of the jury trial waiver cases that the question of the liberty of a waiver has to come up mostly in the absence of an objection answer and for the first time appeal because usually in fact when there is a waiver of jury trial the person is represented by the same attorney the christensen case is one of course where times i didn't do nothing i don't know you know why i'm here and he didn't say i don't know why i'm here that comes up later i think  whole procedural history of this case following following the trial or following the sentencing was and usual and at the time the remit occurred there wasn't a full briefing of of the appeal and defense counsel is right that that's something the government has agreed all along instead defense counsel chose to file some some motions with the court and so the court this court sent it back to remain and on the reception issue wonder booker and an earlier version of am a line but so this was the issue of confidence he has generally been raised in the first brief to this court was remanded and so there was a fairly in that sense a broader than normal remain and it wasn't the typical booker  time the defense did have the opportunity to raise these issues and that's of course how we ended up having the defense retain a psychologist the government retain a psychiatry as both a value with the defendant and those papers the declaration o defendant waived her right to jury trial to assess this this evidence that the defense now relies on the district court has never been given the opportunity to evaluate this question of whether the defendant's waiver of jury trial was knowing intelligent voluntary in light of this after acquired evidence that was presented at the time of research and seen and so if one goes back to one looks at what the district court did do at the time that the defendant waive jury trial the district court did the government the minutes virtually everything right there's no dispute that rule twenty three was complied with there's no dispute that really there was nothing before the court at that time to even require a was not aware that in part because well the defendant may have had remorse about various things in this case there was never in any indication as far as i'm aware that she had remorse about deciding that just him and should decide her case i  record reflects why that would be the case judge him one is an extremely careful and conscientious judge that the whole quickly conducted with her indicates that he he seemed to essentially be trying to talk her out of waiving her right to jury trial and she sent to him i chose you that work that i didn't know it was more of a matter of generally preserving the right way that that these issues are really outside the record here it's it's it's also the record at the time of the waiver would be brought in and really the government mr the district court should be given the first opportunity here if there is going to be a finding on this issue to make that finding because he was not given that opportunity before so and but based on the record that is before the court now the government's states that the remedy and actually i mean the studies there is a case and i took a case i can't remember the name off the top of my head where the government urged that very reality and the court rejected it and vacated just said well the waiver is not good enough and the remedy is