if we start with the constitution every defendant has a right obviously to a jury trial if requested my client was denied the right to have jury trial because of the actions of the o discretion of the trial judge whose decision will not be disturbed absent a showing of prejudicial views and i'm claiming are you meant is that there was an abuse of discretion prejudicial  occurred because the ruling was arbitrary vance hall on reason or when no reasonable person would take this is an ironic case because when i was preparing for a like when i was thinking well you know i have to bring an insufficient evidence argument and it it is an insufficient evidence case because if you view the video it doesn't support the jury verdict but knowing that appellate courts shy away from upsetting what a jury has done what they have been decided because they say well the jury has assessed the witnesses the jury reviewed the evidence and the jury is in a much better position than we are to see what the evidence is like in that case this was not this was this was not allowed to happen  instead and that now gets you why lying i'm saying that the jury was its its duty was taken away from from it but then the part that's to overrule with the jury has decided but it's ok for you to go ahead and do that it's ok for you to step in the shoes of a jury because that's exactly what happened in this case the jury when out they did not have the the video monitor in there in the jury room which the transcript shows the the the prosecutor he i don't know if he just realized he was even saying it but he had said you know in other cases the videos go back in the jury just goes over and over and over again silly so he knew it was there it was possible to have equipment back in that jury room and he also knew it was to his benefit to not have it i submit it was deliberate and it shows that it was deliberate because then after after lunch a motion to get that video back there was brought by the defense attorney and the prosecutor fought strenuously one piece of evidence they have the the officers testimony but you couldn't i submit that if you have one hundred officers come in and testify the jury is always going to go for the real thing they want to see for themselves they say and they were they be here and the defendant is going to be here and the defense attorney was saying why do we need to be here he was the only one that you know kind of like a wake up call why do we need to be here south is not right  value being in the room when this video is aired to the jury in the courtroom the fact that we blew the deliberations deliberations are supposed to be sacred we don't know what's happening don't know what they're thinking what they're saying they want to stop the video a million times they can they want to rewind it they want to fight over it while they're viewing it whenever they want to deal i mean that's the frustrating part is that we'll never know what they do in the jury room so this is your concern is by others being in that hard around with them controlling the video monitor the meeting put themselves right in the middle of jury deliberations they were saying this is what you're going to see the court said it's going to be silent and it was but the defendant is sitting right there when they're watching this video and they have to watch it once it's it's twofold i i think it was wrong to have the video shown in the presence of others you know it should just been the jury and it in that was wrong that it didn't go back there or they weren't able to start and stop the video machine when i really wanted to be reminds thing here it's like i might be you know if someone wants to make money a lot of money that's their problem and it's no one else's business and it's if you say why do you need all that money you're saying will says you know you don't think they do maybe they like to hoard money you know in this case at the motion to get the video back after lunch the court says well here's are going to deal and if it ever comes up again then i'll address it again when and and i'm saying what is it to you what that says you did to the court the prosecutor it's up to the jury how many times they want to see that video and what way shape or form they want to see the video  maybe they wanted to see whether it be obvious or kicked my client once the door was shut i had to view the video twenty times before i to decipher what happened  and it looks like something did happen if if the jury would have been able to seem to have witnessed that maybe that's what they want to see it would've been the credibility of these officers but to sit there and say they are the side that's that's enough it's it's not the court is not in a position to say when it's enough for the jury to see the video it's not it's not up to them it's not up to the prosecutor submit that the prosecutor knew exactly what he was doing when he when it when he didn't go back there did the trial court also did not perform a balancing test is required guilty plea a long takes thirty minutes he's not afraid to say on the record his reasons and he didn't say on this record on her record any reasons he didn't do a balancing test if you would have the outcome had been different it should have been different  there is no reason that he gave other than convenience and it's been proven rigs in the transcript anyway this video machine could have rolled back there and it's the prosecutor knew was he would that the defense attorney was that his mercy because he didn't know how to operate a you not push a button but he was he knew that he was at his mercy he didn't  see normally i could not find a case where he usually it's the state or the defendant say no that's not on fact it was pictures to corey or whatever this case the defendant wants to go back there so when you're looking at prejudice it kind of it kind of eliminates that because it's the defendant who wants to go back there probably do of course it's probative it's it's the actual video it's actually what happened it's the number one piece of evidence no matter what anyone says it's the number one piece of evidence so it is highly probative and there's absolutely no reason it should not have contact there and  y you know when i when i look at why i'm claiming that the evidence was insufficient the number one reason that supports that argument is that the state did not want to go back any other finally in conclusion instead of asking this court to find that the evidence was insufficient although i do are you that it wasn't sufficient because this is a this is a different case appellate court cannot say well the jury was able to assess the witnesses they were able to deliberate they won they were cut off from deliberating the way they want to they wanted to deliberate we'll never know how they wanted to deliberate but we do know that it was aborted instead of asking this court to find there is insufficient evidence and asking the court to order a new trial so that this number one piece of evidence could go the requirements of deliberation to say that other people including the parties can be present during the deliberation of the trilogy which has the  may be that they wanted to be able to point out to one another look at this than i do i think that shows this and this shows this and they didn't have the opportunity to do that because they were viewing the tape w jury after they view the video in the current as you want to see it again come back now we'll show it is may times is why i never said anything like that instead the court said to the lawyers when the jury was out of the room now if it comes up courtroom if we're going to be looked at like we're auburn people and then you know the state right now says apparently they were satisfied or this must have satisfied their inquiry by going into the go on my maori but i sure as heck would want to have my hands on that video thank you