precedents concerning lay and expert opinion we have quite a few of those cases and it's you know it it seems to me that it's really an application  and that is her own perceptions but this simming that it is expert testimony why why is it harmful to your client wouldn't a jury give more weight to any if she were knowing that there aren't you are people that well it could have been sort of admitted anyway and we noticed that the witnesses next and i guess finally with respect to that if that argument also assumes that the foundations so once they found that minimum but the problem is they were correctly instructed in for correctly instructor jury and from there it would be a different question but they should have been a started as you have to look at each defendant make an individualized interpretation of the scope of should be two a one dollar st degree murder and so with with that difference the difference between aggravated assault and st degree murder is a very large swing from a twenty one dollars or twenty and convincing it's supposed to be coming from the th circuit's jury instructions a firm belief or conviction that is highly probable that the fact is true and in this case there was no such high probability there were there was suggestive evidence there was certainly evidence that mr durai was involved in planning a an assault a serious beating  language and gang culture i do not think that for one gang member to say to another gang member that's a done deal whether or not he had any intention for it to happen or not happen or he was surprised or not surprised i don't think that really can also bear the weight of a clear and convincing premeditated murder finding it is a done deal i mean that was a true statement that it was a done deal as again he dad he's not go bother lower babcock anymore or say he's a snitch and this expectation that somehow he's also supposed to then in that call say hey man i didn't know that was going to happen this is really bad we're going to be in trouble i don't think there's a think it's clear and convincing and when we look at that statement too for the offer that was made by lho and you look at the transcript of that there mr mr drop was not on the call at that time according to the transcript and there are two additional pages of transcript after that smash them like an enemy statement is made where lo and facade discussed importing drugs into prison and they're done talking about that and then mr do you want to talk to the rado yogi and he says yes and then he put them on the phone and as truck load of served at the time of the sentencing we don't know where throttle was during that time there's no direct evidence there's no evidence he could have been  tell them to be on the lookout for him all of those statements are consistent with a court out rather than a premeditated murder and so although there may be a suggestion i don't think that the evidence as presented was sufficient for a clear and convincing finding to go from a level twenty one or twenty three to life in prison and i'd like to save the balance of my time for a bottle you may do that ct the time the police arrived people had seen of persons in the area mr zazi apartment that's all it was and then two witnesses saw them walk farther north down the streets of that there was no the only reason they went into the apartment was because they believed there was something going on there but there was no probable cause to go to the earth there was no probable cause to be to try to enter into the apartment when no one answered the door when i witness testifies about a charter and i mean normally very well explain why they know how to put it together the way they put it together and not just put so i guess i just don't see that the inference of the district court and you draw are reasonable inference of my think favor of what the district court found on a fact but that's really not clear and convincing it's kind of barely sufficient so when we look at bradford clear error is that  people work on a kite is not paperwork within the meaning of that term you need a court document and yell document or a public document that would show that the person is actually cooperate ng also the premise here i expert did not the last guess and despite the government kind of pushing at him a little bit to get him to say that he would never say that he was very clear that enemies can be killed and gang members are not that there  position and so there is no actual evidence in the record that that is based on expert opinion what that means and i think i ask you just briefly what what what what's your answer to the question the logical conclusion is that the court should look and see whether the evidence cleared have supported on clear and convincing evidence standard a finding that the just report made so if the evidence is that fifty one percent it cannot have supported a clear and convincing evidence standard which is higher by definition then preponderance i'm so i think the answer is that it's not sufficient and it's clear error under the sports review thank you and my