which is regarding the jury misconduct issue the extrinsic evidence relying on one past personal experiences and the wrote meyer hayes i believe support juror brought into the deliberations the fact that he said that he had been in illinois and he knew that there were no way stations and that was relevant to the issue that was well when if you're weighing in on math what difference it makes because the evidence to submit questions even if they were right even if you tell them that you might not answer all the questions when you start out doing it but the jury is in a completely different frame of mind than our adversarial system of justice complex because the jurors  therefore the juror i mean the question is an intelligent person but that's not what jurors are supposed to be doing is trying to figure well what you know we would like the minutes on this that and that's that's helpful to your client i don't understand why you would through because it's the government's burden so that you just wondering about it and to me that's helpful to your client i just don't see how i could possibly be prejudicial this is not because then the government comes back and sa create a per se rule making any effort by the jury to question reversible error well it would be a startling case we would have to  a forever stamp among let's let yours ask questions so we know what's on their mind so that will help us be better advocates for our client so if a judge in his or her discretion decides to allow some questions in a neutral  way and nothing that i ask or answered prejudices your client then what possible reversible error he's been committed because on the one hand it starts to jurors as i hear i've been you know an advocate for twenty years and sometimes you know i could say it doesn't always work you know you get you know it's not equal and really it doesn't always work and that may be a good idea but the problem is we do have a system here and when a jury does the questions that's not the way we do things and in this particular case it did criticize the defendant because he was the one that has to make a big deal out of it and therefore it's the court needs to set because people are worried about juries you know wanting to come to court at all and answering the jury subpoena and being bored you know is that the difference is letting them participate in this particular manner or getting them cappuccino machine i mean i don't know what the answer is right now but it seems that trial and i first on the issue that counsel raises regarding the appropriateness of the trial court in this case asking the or telling you jurors actually that they could propose questions if they so chose  method of questioning is neutral on the defendant is not prejudiced by the question or the answer that there is no reversible error and in this case the procedure adopted by the trial court was virtually identical to the procedure that this court has already jurors prior life experience and interpret in the evidence interpreting arguments that were being put forth through questioning of witnesses rodemeyer there was no evidence introduced whatsoever as to the defendant's mental condition or what effect that mental condition would have had on the offense but the juror during the liberations drew on her prior medical expertise her prior medical experience and told the other jurors that the defendant experience in making the comments during deliberations the same thing occurred in this case in response to a parent argument or positions the defense asserted in questioning one of the government case even if that the comments are deemed to be extrinsic evidence it had no effect on the outcome because the evidence of the source of the hiv which is what that comment went to was overwhelming the truck drivers testified about where the pigs came from charles barnes testified about selling the pigs to eddie to another man and johnny to sean testified about receiving the shipment of hay with the help certificates in question  the fact that the pigs with these health certificates traveled from texas and illinois to california was overwhelming so the jurors comments about waste a very very testimony about whether where  of marijuana when the defendant was found at the site of the marijuana grow and neck case of the defendant testified on his own behalf and offered an implausible story about how he came to be at the marijuana grow and what testimony is offered and that's exactly what we have in this case to defend then did offer testimony on his own behalf in his own defense that's testimony was completely implausible when you compare the testimony the source of the the information contained in the health certificates scuse me and the testimony from a particularly mr in our house there is sufficient evidence to damages and arrived at a figure of loss on that theory of seven hundred some odd thousand dollars and then it comes to restitution recognizes that the question is different and that restitution does reach only actual damages or damages directly caused by the l and so my question really is how do we how can we tell that the district court didn't do what it appears to have done which is take consequential damages and put them the restitution amount of the first of all that the use of the term consequential damages the issue isn't necessarily how this district court characterized the damages but what the damages actually wore to the guy when the court engaged in the guideline calculation the guidelines the comments of the are confusing because there are there do seem to be conflicting cases where these terminologies are used what the issue boils down to one restitution is simply whether the amount that was ordered is restitution does reflect actual loss that was directly caused by the defendants conduct and it is not too far removed from that conduct and the test is not simply whether the trial or label that is consequential damages or not but or restitution award can include the difference between what the product was worse before contamination and afterwards and replacement cost your honor's correct ok so what else for any is there for allowing both the by analogy i believe you can also look to the i believe it was the situation and reprogramming its computers notifying customers handling customer complaints and by analogy sure but that's that's that's only if that's that recovery you see what i'm asking is where you have authority for both the difference between the value of the inventory before and after contamination and replacing the has laid out is whether the law is directly related or there are results directly from the defendants conduct and here the law that was suffered by the victim because the district court did not exactly break it out in this way and because it did characterize the replacement of the heard and some other things as consequential and because it's going to obviously have to go back anyway her book or reasons why shouldn't we just simply say a lot it seems unclear to us whether actual damp weather that restitution award may include some damages that aren't direct and that aren't allowed and i live and let me look at it may be mistaken but i don't believe that the district court when it did impose the restitution found that the losses were directly cause i did not observe and argue for the inclusion of this forty thousand seven hundred something  song no i don't believe i believe that the argument that the government put forth was that the amount of restitution and the amount of loss for guideline purposes should have been seven hundred  foreseeability of all of those losses and i don't believe that that rash of the rationale that the trial court used in setting restitution an act case  don't recall the court's comments on mr smother min's restitution order and i don't recall what the calculation was that brought the court says one hundred six thousand dollars mr some other men but i believe that one hundred six thousand dollar figure first mother men had to do with simply the last cost of the pigs and did not include cleanup costs and other costs that were associated with the disease if i recall correctly the court's reasoning was that the pseudo rabies outbreak and the result there was testimony at the sentencing hearing and i believe he also submitted a breakdown of his cost pacifically even including a figure that i think the court excluded from the restitution order which was trucking costs or something to herd what the last value was for the pigs that he had to destroy and all of that was presented at the sentencing hearing and there was no arguments or dispute about the validity of the cla that he was making about what his costs were the only dispute was whether those costs are appropriate for restitution