to ask you to keep your voice up i'm not your council can hear in the back there is also another person in the back as you can see we have a very high ceiling even though we have microphones please keep your voice up they don't sound like you're yelling but then everybody can hear you think thank isn't really the meaning beside the point here because the trial court held the jury instruction conference before the hearing and then another one after the hearing to confirm what was decided at that jury instruction conference when the state proposed seventeen a it was the defense who spoke up and sat on our call to the court attention that the state also had a seventeen b and sad according to the record so i would ask that seventeen be given so it was the  things and certainly the state didn't prepare them but the record it seems to me is very clear that it was the defense who proposed that seventeen be b think that the state should be allowed to tender to alternative obstructions and then and then say pick one and when he said well i don't want this one so the other one should i think it's more along the lines of failing t the argument to evade that that this dangerousness finding is for women everywhere if the person is to still dangerous they stay as if they are no longer dangerous then they're discharged unless the court but makes finding i'm certain there rd district appealed the fact that a jury found the respondent appeared no longer to be sexually dangerous but it was impossible to determine with certainty under conditions of institutional care that he was fully recovered that was people versus  because none of respondents were claims about the jury instructions the verdict or the evidence where it really had a common thread that runs through all four of the issues that resign it raises if that risk faces a high burden that he must satisfy for reversible reversal to be appropriate and that is because three of his issues were not preserved below and are forfeited so that record reversal is only appropriate if you can meet his burden under the plain air doctrine and the th issue that is reserved the verdict groups which the key factor is whether respond or helen's counsel below affirmatively participated in the direction that the proceedings when if it would you agree that it was the state that tendered these two instructions seventeen and seventeen b said no objection the transcripts here in a different picture because yes although the state had drafted the alternate versions of this one jury instruction it was respondants counsel who affirmatively said i want this court to give the seventeen version yes it was drafted by the state but that wasn't a permanent fact that brings us within the invited area doctrine but even if this court doesn't want to hire invited error it's still true that was fine and has not met his for them to demonstrate that plain error occurred trial court to have presented a conditional release as a jury option and because of this very confusion that we've since debated a lot here today to confusion in the language and the fact that the only case law even in the neighborhood is consistent with what did occur it is not plain air and that is as far as this court needs to go and then turning back to the burden of proof issue issue that was also touched upon as discussed it would not make sense to do this as imposing a burden of proof on the should have been a specific instruction defining the burden of proof or whatever and who shouldn't then so either there is no error at all or at the very least as the johnson case was provided by analogy as i understand respondents argument is the problem here is that the burden of proof is not specified at all then that would make it easier for the jury to come to the verdict that conditional release is appropriate if it's and yet as your honor i think pointed out the jury rejected that verdict and found that he remained in s t p so it cannot be said that even if there were sung error and not specified in the for in truth respond it has not demonstrated that it had an impact on the outcome because show by clear and convincing evidence that he remained in s t p and after the jury at the jury trial on this issue there is the testimony of two experts there were details reports that were also given and