right to remain silent the right against self incrimination and that corresponding right not to testify for out in this case the trial court filing those constitutional rights of mr mann when it abused it one or another here the trial court received a purely factual question from the jury during deliberations the jury asked did mr map state to the police that he was out of town and the stated to the police that he was out of town and that the car was being used by another person while he was gone the jury's reminded that defendant was and is under no obligation to speak to the police or test you continue to the car at the time that it was stop mr smith had stated that he had heart a week prior while mr matthews had been out of town in chicago and while he had the car he placed the gun in the car without the knowledge miss information that was never testified to during the trial that just refuse to know anything about the show because people in the car yes are there was a lot of conversation about reminded that the defendant was and is under no obligation to speak to the police or testify you continue to deliberate to consider only the evidence was in the trial the response went too far i think at the trial or was attempting to help the jury but it went too far and the jury had all the evidence before it should have favored the state because now the jury was well aware that there was no cooperation to be offered for ricky smith's testimony this defense was completely undermined by this state n't tell the jury that the defendant did not make the statement that there was no evidence to that effect because the distinction between those two court would cross the line have said no the defendant did not make any the instruction that was given was to fact that the court said no i have said straight that you have to have this court said that the jury's confusion was understandable and so under those circumstances you have to  what if it was a lot of sense of other conduct evidence that under those facts the traveler has a duty to specifically accurately hansa the jury's questions same thing in plan where the jury wanted to know and in this case you have defense counsel telling them in opening statement that you're going to hear from two police detectives who heard the defendant telling smith when they were in yes that's true and of course you know i have the case of bunny and you said this was not good enough because the prosecutor there made a statement in opening and then didn't produce the evidence you said that the giving  advise them to stay and you hope that was not in effect assistance of counsel so he laid the seats there for for that argument that probably the defendant wanted to take the stand his attorney was it buys him not to so i don't think the jury was the jury was well aware that the defendant did not have to say anything its defense counsel here made an error and again that came back to haunt him that he was the owner of the car well in addition to the fact that he was the owner of the car you have the fact that he pulled into a house that was suspected of drug dealing and that was a listen by defense counsel the officer was alarmed about that the jury knew that he was a felon and one officer said it's it's commonplace for people to conceal contraband something that's illegal in that area behind the glove stand the stop of the vehicle whereas smith gave the police a false name which gave them additional time to get a canine sweep and smith then told police after he was arrested i had no idea there were guns in the legislature has now said that you know there is to be a sentence for each other was he charged he wasn't terry no he was no he was charged with the information said i love unlawful