now what is issue at issue or this court is the law it's not the facts i don't think issue with the facts whatsoever but in order to set the stage for this double jeopardy violation if i may just briefly state the charge that the government brought against my client first prosecution and the second specifically the first prosecution of my client the government last that brought in eighteen count indictment aggravated destruction far acted better with the firearm and aggravated battery with respect to michael dixon interests with my client was convicted of aggravated destroying our unfortunate turn of events for years later swenson by way of a host of different supreme court case they talk about how the government can reach characterize a second prosecution as first of a conviction i don't know what  be usually i say shot ok and be immediately injured but not die and we saw a recently james brady who was shot in the reagan assassination attempt died something like thirty five years after he was shot have the same elements and that's what they're using to get around the top which i'm pretty real and you haven't really addressed that yet well if i may be wrong i'd like to bifurcate my argument because well if separate the felony murder charges that were brought against my client second base from the outside that the knowing murder charges or the felony murder charges the government as openly it should be made but now i think that happens all the time around here that you know somebody in the pills division is a second look in and says oh yeah we have to confess iran one of the ninety two issues correct something but that if i may read the specific text as well as boring two successive prosecutions for the same offense collateral stop is also a body in the criminal tax criminal code that's a double jeopardy jurisprudence so the government couldn't possibly bring up any of these issues and they cannot really litigate dead issues issues that died in the first so they used the brain now to say that my client somehow despite all of the charges and having been found not guilty on all the charges that somehow he had knowledge that his acts i'm i'm speaking specifically to the knowing murder charges but you're right you're right about that it doesn't require a specific mental state it just requires the mental state necessary to commit the felony but with respect it why because every supreme court case that follows the as that references it by way of footnotes says that there may be an exception when the government in the first case when the commits a crime and is found guilty of having come into physical contact with an individual but that individual later died as a result of their their injury i believe that the government should be able to bring  i have one more question before anything else you are here one of the things that struck me when i read this case and i want to use both of you this is and i'm astonished that this exact fam pattern hasn't come up somewhere else i mean every every case everybody says reciting is similar but not quite on point where we have a knack guilty and an attempted murder and then the person dies and then they're tried for murder  not to overbook this sweeping will thank you a shooting that occurred that involved for victim in the strip mall parking lot after one of the victims died michael hunter after result of the gunshot wound inflicted to have back up the hunter his conviction is proper in the first trial of defendant while i put it to charges that related to the victim hunter those charges were at times murder aggravated battery the firearm mental states are required in the charge of felony murder that he was convicted of here the people did it now if found the first two charges of knowing murder were improper based on let me let me go outside the facts that we have before us right this minute talk about a policy question all right the whole point of double you know one of the great effects of double jeopardy on the system right is that if you're involved in a criminal act right regardless of how complicated it might be the state basically gets one crack at you they've got to you know put in their best charges and they let the chips fall where they may and knowing that in your mind as a defendant you make a decision for instance whether to plea out whether to plead guilty because you know these are the charges that this is the additionally i would state that our defender was found guilty here he was found guilty of shooting these victims he just was found not guilty of intentionally shooting the specific victim that die but he was not found not guilty in the shooting so he was found guilty by your common sense and it's illogical to prosecute him for hunter's murder after he was found not guilty with with respect to anything having to do with come to her and the guilty findings were really other people and so you're going to bootstrapping the murder charge over the pack that he was found not prosecutor is certain i'm told state in regard to the victim hunter in this case and that is all that was decided in the first trial for felony murder the mental state is not required it is simply intent some specific specific intent others included knowledge now the government essentially tries to wipe away that sweeping will that my client secured in the first prosecution and to say that even though all of those issues are gone by way of collateral stoppel which is before this court by way past versus one said that somehow my client undertook acts to kill michael hunter with knowledge that his act carried a substantial likelihood of his death or his great bodily harm the knowledge and the intent are gone they were gone by way of the sweeping will and that is with respect to knowing  charges that were brought second with respect to the felony murder charges predicated on lesser included offenses we know this by way of united states versus days with respect to those the us does not apply the government does not discuss the law behind d s they don't discuss the logic behind d s now the death isn't necessarily an element i do not believe that death is an element it's not often that a defense attorney gets up on a directed verdict and says that the the state has failed to carry its burden beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant die a conviction and what it says it contains a completion requirement for discovery aren't if at the first proceeding for some reason the crime was not completed or the government