taken by matthew rose the passenger mr maggs since car and the video that made it into evidence by the state for the purposes of this argument i intend to focus on our fourth issue which concerns the trail procedure for allowing the jury to examine that we're discussing armory really center around the principle from the united states forces are now and that is that is a basic rule of our criminal justice system the jury deliberations are supposed to be private and it is in secret and the primary purpose on video contemporaneously and point out details to each other freely examine it in the privacy of the jury room i can see the point but it goes for purposes of very very few do we have to come to the conclusion get that information it is worth going when i think you assume just like other demonstrative exhibit that you would go back i think i think counsel assume that it would go back because prisons if you have photographs of the crime scene look at it you know slowly and carefully examine it and and played it there at their leisure and i think the fact is on you know despite the state brings up affect the jury was able to watch it on during the course of trial three times on the fourth district decided that there's the injury to you that if a jury inquest to see a video or hear it in open court the judge always properly exercised discretion to have them do it in open court but that but  the court and this proves you know provided no it is that assuming the trial for his properly instructed the jury regarding this procedure by telling them why not to discuss the evidence in the courtroom to buying my machine everyone not to overtly case obviously the jury was tasked with weighing the credibility of the police's version of events hokey over mr magnusson version of events in this state right from the outset in their closing arguments you know and then went on the record would indicate the did your is felt constrained not to seek it again if they felt that they needed it i guess they were told to think it is for it and they did in fact ask for it and they were given it nothing indicate that when they went to the jury room and spoke among themselves they felt they needed to see it again nothing in this record would indicate that they felt constrained to naturalistic or to see it again would it get better practice for the judge just to get been committed without lawful justification given there's a logical inconsistency where juries told that they must the people must prove all of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt and among the elements of his to prove and a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted without justification to leave the additional instruction minister plus it because whatever the context and whatever i can number we've given them they have been told that this is something in to tell us that it was an  you think if you're not sure if the prosecution should say something like this if you're talking to the prosecutors i could probably tell them to stay away from this  that while the jurors who are watching in the courtroom they want influence by some type of improper communication or some type of over influence i really think the best that's missing the point and i think the one of the things you punch or was he actually pushed back and did the choking start at that time so here i think it is safe to say that based on this record with the jury was looking for was to watch it in the privacy of the jury room where they could control the and i think that is nearing reasonable to assume that i don't think that that is a guess is speculation and because of the public or responding to their requests to do that and to bring them back out to the court room and then to just say