saying and so there are the rule under jackson versus virginia when restricting the review under ignoble review to the trial record it would exclude this court your view of the presence of court  below mr jackson's counsel moved for quote all of their will twenty nine dollars at the close of the government's case and at that point in time the district court said that it was preserving that issue that was dealt with at sidebar but didn't and at that time the disher court understood we know that the district court understood the st rule tree and i motioned that it didn't initially address to be general because the district court went through all of the elements that the government needs to prove the three of the time of trial insufficiency challenge and the th circuit in that case found that the poster hafe challenge regarding sufficiency had been preserved based on that general rule from that motion and after deciding that if found proceedings and the constitutional violations that mr jackson experienced are what really made this is structural or we're looking at an area here where his th and th amendment rights were violated and because of that that is what renders the error structural and in fact this court has found previously that a th amendment violation is structural that was a district case that was in several versus stewart and then actually that the constitutional errors that resulted from the invalid indictment are established because we know that the jury or the grand jury i should say was not provided with all of the elements needed to decide and mr jackson was not offered adequate notice because there all the elements are not listed in the indictment and while the parties at the time did not feel that race was going to be issued it still is a i do not have a case of close on point but i'd also like to address the rationale behind structural errors and the rationale that it's an error that affects something that is simply too hard to measure is why this is a structural or here we do not know what if the tour evidence could have been presented and so the for that reason is that it's possible to not share but also disagree with you on structural error and you do get to the force prong how how do you argue that the public reputation bowl speech right and at the end of the speech do you expect the somebody is going to say oh well that's outrageous i mean the trials in america are just going to the dogs i mean it's so has to affect the public reputation of judicial proceedings it would strike me that you'd have to go outside the trial record some degree to be able to had the court reviewed the review points to two tional violations i think the result would have been different and in this case that is the root of mr jackson's argument that these constitutional violation when we look at those under the th prong to go beyond the trial record would be to place efficiency above a defendant's constitutional rights and a player close to actual dimension going felony convictions and it was it resulted from injuries from the same federal courthouse where this case was tried because mr jackson did not object either in the district court he did before or after his you may look at the complete record such as a p s r this case and and from that determine if there was sufficient evidence to to satisfy  in this case occurred before rape was issued and the sentencing occurred after the rape cases issued and yet there was no objection own until for the st time on appeal as  less or any other questions about this race issue or any other of the issues raised in a brief i'll be happy to try to answer them oh i'm ok thank you more importantly the government's position about the noble and clean air or view is in practice the result would be different in terms of how this court looks at the information and so we know that in the united states versus jackson i'm sorry i said mrs johnson this court made an exception under plain error of you finding that it was going to go beyond the trial record and it should not have done that if it had reviewed the constitutional violations that the election mr jackson's case other under the noble review the general rule under jackson versus virginia is that the score is restricted to the trial record and so that there was no clean air because it had to go beyond a trial record because