of the charged incidents which spanned only a few minutes but of over an hour utterly irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial videotape evidence before after and even hours after the cell extractions took place they the courtroom the inherently prejudicial effect of those images was compounded by videotape footage of other inflammatory things such as bradford sexual outburst his constant profanity singing his muttering and his racial epithets the videotapes talk taken together were so inflammatory and so hopelessly biased the jury against him particularly on those charges were dropped brad thanks intent was hotly contested that they fundamentally infected the entire trial and rendered it unfair and did properly in the reference objection to both types was timely under the circumstances i know this is a tense only on the first day of trial even though he had requested them a month beforehand and they have been mentioned in  court should use the part of the same kind of prejudice analysis that you see in this tracking cases and once you decide that the jury has been unfairly affected by this kind of a vision of the defendant branded as inherently violent violent on the videotape pose no threat to the jury or to the trial process they were shown even despite the fact that he was not there that there was no can no possibility of violence coming from those videotapes  i may be wrong but i think you might out and he would have had counsel and possibly counsel would have asked for some reaction i don't know and he did not have billy were lying in a person and the reason why i would have gotten redactions is precisely because ninety percent of what's in that  prejudice or not and i would not is that the showing the entire tape that part of the tape other than just the actual incident itself was irrelevant i think it was relevant in the district court noted you're saying the getting up talking about things that happened previously i think certainly the portions of the tape where it showed the guard's talking to him ahead of time letting him know what was going to happen asking for his what i would watch in the camera before the taping started running that was in effect right and i don't think that's irrelevant to the incident itself i don't think it's irrelevant to the incident itself to getting context to what mr bradfor get to his actions in the head butting in spitting and throwing feces and urine i think the rest of the tape context to that and showed  right in why you're asking why didn't the judge why didn't the judge reacted on his own i don't know what kind of wonder what is driving record why the prosecutor did in other words most trial lawyers try not to bore the socks off the jury thought he didn't and there may have been the fact that he wasn't represented courses on choice it wasn't perfect now this is outside the record and you probably don't know and that kind of trying to figure out showing up in the morning with the tape he's saying wait a minute i want to see it given to him over the lunch hour maybe still in shackles he's allowed to see it and then he makes some objections that aren't maybe as loyally as a lawyer would a good lawyer would make but this is pretty tough business for somebody in that situation to be asked and on the fly in shackles and educated in the law to figure out i have to say the magic word redacted  can see right now and i think he does want to excuse me but i think that was one of his arguments and i think that was another reason why they were so relevant as to the instance bradford argued you know it shows that i didn't do it it clear in the tapes of the actual incidents what happened i don't think it shows exactly but on the other hand you have officers coming in i believe nine at least testifying about each of the charged incidents i think that testimony alone got two years for and on the headbutting incident for which he got two years because we don't know what the jury would have done had they not been prejudiced by all those incredibly inflammatory and or relevant issues are there any other questions you'd like me not excuse anything specifically that does not make an opportunity for the prosecution to take advantage of that as that fact by admitting this an important evidence exposing him to this important evidence later that he couldn't formulate the proper objections that he couldn't