and what efforts the turning of choice was trying to make to get some resolution on scheduling it is not uncommon when the federal and state courts have conflicting schedule interests and you see th postponed the mom the february twenty third there was still a question but the state court and the problem of the prosecutor had a problem with a reluctant witness and if this were rescheduled on february twenty third to march not its decision had nothing to do with the court's reasonable decisions regarding its scheduling the other point i wanted to make is that my colleague suggests that this conflict develop suddenly in the state court and he was left to scramble at that point but think of some of the questions suggested as early as november twenty fourth teen he knew that the trial date in the federal court had been set and was firm he did know of the record does not reflect that he made any efforts at that point to block out the march twenty fifth enon the state court and say i have tied up in federal court at that time and i will be unavailable because the one point i have to make in response i'm happy to take the court's questions was anonymous off them so you can't distinguish based upon anonymity when both were anonymous but but information that was posted in the first one the one juror identifiable and having are the first posting was i think a little call for a little more inquiry the fact that a person who claimed to be a juror said that the juror the jury was fifty fifty and there was reason to believe that this was the juror who had been excused she specifically said i was excused from the jury because i was sick there was some credence to that credibility to that and the government agreed that this juror had to be called in for an inquiry but this  would have known the description of that nature and as the blog posting show that there was quite a bit of interest in this case and there were members of the audience who were posting on this blog who could describe the trial and its proceedings there was also th allegation that juror from the beginning had been making statements about the blonde right but that's the issue i guess that we don't know if it's true or not and your honor that that's the point at which we don't know as sure of that in the district had said be sick was not information that anybody else couldn't have access to this church itself had posted on the blog that she left the jury because she was sick and her description was readily available to anyone who was in the courtroom so all we have is a basic an anonymous posting by someone who and i don't know this to be true but might have their own agenda in terms of do you railing the case we see a lot of that if you read the blog postings there were a lot of people who had interest in this case on both sides the vast amount of discretion that she's granted in these situations was given a choice between holding in all of the jurors after a verdict running up against the policy interests and intruding on the integrity of the jury necessarily grounds for a new trial and the reason is well the juror said was that this juror had raised the existence of the blog there was no indication that any or any of the jurors had read the blog there's no indication that any extraneous information required it was a violation of her abuse of discretion it was an abuse of her discretion to not inquire further when that is all we have is that is the possibility if we assume that this occurred and that this wasn't or the possibility that the new trial i would suggest to the court though that that would be quite a significant remedy in the context of this case with the jury verdict that is now over a year old holding in jurors as this court has more than once said is against policy and trusts and subjecting them to an inquiry it's contrary to the interests and finality and to the integrity of the jury process and into a frank and honest jury deliberations instructions about accessing outside information you do generally refer to the internet they did not hear the court did tell the jurors not to talk about the case not to think about the case not to engage in premature deliberations to wait until all the evidence is in the instructions i would agree our world a little more we're a little less specific than a lot of the instructions in the district court but i think they were clearly sufficient to put the jury on notice that they were found on august eighth which was the same day as the verdict there before prior to that there was no indication that anybody knew that anybody potentially a juror potentially an extra had posted on this blog thank you