i would like to proceed by st addressing the issue of whether the trial court should have granted a mistrial after the jury unequivocally expressed itself as being hopelessly deadlocked and inform the court that they believed no further time would help more specifically your honour's the note from the jury informed the trial court of its no meri and more specifically of which way the split was positioned specifically at eleven we're going to convict in one was voting not guilty and the not even revealed that  rationale being that they had found reasonable doubt as to the charges if they don't meet the district court no no which sure was the hold out your i do not know if if the that was not r but i would like to emphasize that after that no was in the hands of the trial court that one juror then knew that the court knew that it was an eleven to  split with that one juror on the i guess the short end of that debate and i moved the that the note was turning around three hundred and thirty the end of one day of deliberation we returned the next morning and a promptly move for mistrial and the trial court did not grant that motion and because the trial court knew of the numerical division and because the jury was all aware that the judge who knew of that and sent them back anyway it is inherently coercive and the language was such that if if if you guys are able to reach a unanimous verdict we would like you to do that if you could considering one vote was not guilty and eleven were guilty there was no conceivable way that one jury that one juror would have  to convince all other eleven and amounted to twelve votes for not guilty the only way the jury under the circumstances which we were all aware of at this point could result in the un is if that one not go not guilty juror changed his vote which he was entitled to hold and and then changes voted to conviction because that was the only forseeable outcome under the that is you haven't put on the on the instruction did you did you object to the to the to the phrasing of the instruction i did not lodge a nd objection to the language that was given i my position was no instruction should have been given any instruction is inherently coercive when we're in a circumstance where the judge knows the numerical split and the votes of the of the jury that's why in closing instructions the judge tells all every judge tells every jury if you if you're deadlocked do not tell me the numerical split to avoid a situation like this but in violating that jury then the jury came in and told him i believe judge in the standard instructions they go to tall juries where they say only contact me by a written note through my bailiff you'll be somewhere secure i 'm ninety nine percent sure as in this case there is a standard starting that says if you're only able to reach a verdict don't don't tell me the  issue miss santiago was originally arrested on a warrant that was sought by her probation officer in connection with what we refer to in the northern district as a form twelve which is a petition alleging that someone has rigged violated the terms of the supervised release and the allegation in that document was that she quote violated eighteen requested miss sentosa rest and therefore she was held on those charges which should have in my opinion triggered the speedy trial clock of eighteen u s c section and sixty one dollars which requires any indictment to be filed within thirty days of that clock commencing and less time is excluded and no time was excluded under the speedy trial  separate from the facts underlined the forthcoming later forthcoming indictment specifically i believe in contrary is originally was dirty drug test etc they brought him into custody they investigated other crimes they believe you might have been involved in develop your evidence and then indicted him but the initial detention was the initial probation violation was independent and separate from the charges of the exact same charge that she was indicted on i mean the request for the warrant quotes eighteen us c section want to levin and that's what she was indicted on so i believe it's fundamentally different than the situation  regarding the issue of specific and of the intent element of the assault theory just two points your honor that there as a court is aware three means attempt to frighten theory one of the two theories the government ultimately pursued in its case was attempting to frighten which is a specific intent  crime based on this court's president in sierra acosta and ramos i do not believe the jury was properly instructed on that i did request during deliberations a supplemental instruction be given it was not given i don't believe the jury was properly instructed on that theory and last point your honor if i may prior to the commencement of the trial in this case the party submitted a joint statement to the jury and in a joint statement the parties agreed on a small caption that would be read to the panel at the outset of jury selection and in that caption the parties agreed position was that she denies that and she's presumed innocent and i was read to the jury at the outset of jury selection my position that statement which was in essence the government selection of which of the three assault there is they would pursue a trial was binding and when the government shifted and elected to pursue a theory in the disjunctive either theory two or thirty three  and the government correctly explain those instructions to the jury throughout the trial in doing so the government consistently referred to theories of salt around the trial theories to read only this court has upheld supplemental she was the holdout and she had strongly held beliefs but here i think we have a very different scenario where the identity of the person was never was just never revealed and although the note was signed by someone who is not a  no says we think running past what are our options and the district court responds with what the options for the for the jurors are we can really back portions of the trans then we can give you further jury instructions we just want to determine how they want to proceed it was exactly that question do you want to continue deliberations or is this it and you your honor judge nelson's question my opposing hensel there was no objection to that language of that instruction and then there was only if the jury comes back and says nothing further is going to help us at that point in time the both parties agreed in the we're agreed a mistrial would have to be declared but that's how the jury count actually convinced the other nine and we don't always know it goes on in the jury room but i would i just pointed out as an example of of the fact that the juries are deliberating and they're coming to a reasoned inclusion so i don't again don't hear as the district court found this case is very similar to the banks decision authored by your honor judge ivy and the chain code decision the supplemental instruction was only g jurors were asked what their options were and the dishes corresponded with various options which have been approved by this court such as we reading trial testimony and rereading jury  the court reminded the jury not to disclose numerical division again and the jury continue deliberating for another day ask questions about what the reasonable doubt standard meant as it relates to w credibility and the burden of proof and also asked about to hear further testimony moving on to these very speedy trial and claim this court held the and they talk about the fact that if it connects a charge with the offense that is asserted and as you provide released violation is really about a breach of trust to the district court that's why it can  release violation but occur which is governed by the due process clause when the government filed the substantive indictment on section one and i've been that started as speedy trial law and they are two separate offenses the only exception is that the prosecution is delaying for tactical advantage in addition of course here properly found there was no ruse no something more no attempt to gain advantage i only on the last issue of intent and whether or not the government what theories would be traded was the jointly prepared jury instructions which listed all three theories of assault in the just jumped in both parties agree to this court small injuries struction which is correct based on the law the circuit instruction or re read the model instruction which in and of itself does not to a jury might not clarify specific intent especially when you consider the way that that instruction is written so she did not say no recklessness is not high enough you must make a funny on specific intent she just referred the jury to the model instruction secondly  thousands of the case of the model instructions or many of the things that the party submitted in the joint statement but they wore read the statement of the case which had the government's theory which was th they believed was that my client assent jago attempted to strike deputy le fort with her car which is the nd form of assault under section one  their case was not consistently arguing both the nd and rd theory of assault it argued the nd theory and while some of the evidence they garnered could have applied to both theories the government often is very thorough in this presentation of evidence but the theory that they elected and and what was read to the jury was the nd theory and that was the theory the defense is it is it excuse because in your position here that you had been the theory throughout the case you know it's really kind of hard to think of anything more discretionary on the part of a district judge and that kind of decision  explained because i argued it was specific intent the government in its rebuttal closing said mr guzman argue specific intent but that's not a correct statement of the law and then quotes the model instruction which has the effect