you think you passed and she said yeah i'm not going to fail it because i've got nothing to live and then about twenty five minutes after that she said i'll take th tangible objects evidence which would include exhibit ten which had been admitted and we know that this is a jury that was reviewing everything it had it a little bit deliberate for ten hours the state points out in their brief the discussion of a lie detector test totals around thirty seconds for the last thirty seconds so in ten hours of time the jury could of easily watch this entire video watch it several the judge saying that everything's in the back there is no reference at all again to that recording but again it's an inference we have to make a lot of inferences here of what the jury mean wa was prejudicial and was a are in should result in her conviction being reversed so regardless it was published during the trial i think it's worse in the way it's happened here because now the jury i think that the only inference you can have in the record is that it went back to the jury and again i think it's really important that this we can't obviously this juror's back in discussing whatever they're discussing for ten hours we don't know what the talks about this is that the insurance can be is that if a person is offered a lie detector test and doesn't take it or what here there's a discussion  the police interview defendant and people's exhibit one hundred and eight dollars was short clips from that interview and they were both admitted into evidence but only ten a was published to the jury just the clips the trial just did provide t would have been different and most importantly about this video at the end of the interview detective osc is told in she was being arrested in jail for criminal sexual assault in the video shows that no polygraph they've been given to defend it prior to  people discuss people v jefferson in which our supreme court concluded that the trial judge correctly permitted evidence of the circumstances surrounding the defendant's confession including her agreement to later to a polygraph to admit the polygraph evidence because it was introduced in the state's case in chief and it was used as a sward to advance the state's case that did not happen in this case it was not used at all trial of evidence the transcripts in session they want to review but that doesn't prove he was he was close it just proves that they had some difference of opinion about the reasonable doubt standard in the standard head instruments that reasonable doubt text messages between the two of them in one point he even says he wanted to have sex with her again and she didn't even respond to that negatively or positively lot of i love you messages between the two ends of there is nothing close about this sent back to the jury because the court decides that for whatever reason safety reasons whatever and that's been explicitly stated on the record as to why that is it's not only back to the jury for during deliberations here we don't see that and i don't think it's it may be speculations we don't know what the other what exactly happened but i think it's fair to say that even though we don't know it's listen we from the record what occurred we thus we only have what the judge said the jury had to consider and i think that when they consider it will those  don't want the jury considering that information and i think that's what the key to this is not just this is a piece of evidence that the jury got to consider that wasn't polish it was on he said no and that's important part of the prejudicial portions of  interviewing her in relation to what the police and are even speaking with her and i think again the jury left to their own devices with no instruction ample time to review or she to this video a one million times could have said well she had minute to the conduct that she better to fire me because she knew she was going to film a lie detector test or what is this other possible credible activity or this other investigation with the c f s she's a bad person because they're going to try to take her children away from her there's all kinds of prejudicial reasons the jury could have considered this out of this that was not hope washington for all those reasons again we don't know if that this court reverse