to the defendant's attorney do that and if the trial court refused it the defense counsel then say well i would like to here there is an air of it which claims your point already and one of the alternative seconds steps of the analysis is whether or not the integrity of the system is called question his his religion so i don't know you know why i mean the they kicked him in the head they kicked him in the body be thrown down the stairs and the seven fifteen says the  excuse me do your religious beliefs in any way prevent you from getting medical attention because i'm going to be jobs i mean how are they going to know that housing foreseeable they didn't know i mean i don't know i might be arch think i understand what you're saying but i still think there's a distinction between someone who has a physical condition that is impacted versus a leader conscious choice to consciously even if question of fact for the jury of this case when the jury should have had the opportunity to make that decision whether or not i believe it used to be that it was him and survived for a year and a day for many injuries inflicted it was not to be court i would like to begin with people versus gopher because i believe that case that's worth all the principals that control this case and go for the third circuit of the third district declared that the legal chain of causation from blow to the head in circumstances similar to this only circumstances in which death can be reasonably unforeseeable are literally acts of god i mean or are circumstances that are so clear cut were clearly the death surrounding the felony in the commission of a felony has literally nothing to do with affection wasn't treated because it was just sort of their beliefs would it be fair to say that based upon what you just said which was there is no exception in this instance or that the actual scenario would probably or recently result death but there are factual scenarios where doing something totally will not rationally result in death but because of complications brought on by at i think go for her and we go on with gunshot wounds this case of pretty vicious beating the victim's home i think those are all very far inside the safe for all foreseeability what's your lot of interesting you know issues that come up here but the bottom line is that the defense argument is that we treat the victims religious beliefs as a preexisting condition of the for some reason that makes this not a murder or something less than a murder and respectfully even stronger for the state media jury would have been told that it didn't matter if the victim's death was accidental or intentional it didn't matter if it had resulted as a result of the actions of the confederates of the robbery and so the fact that  the defendant in this case was original tries the principle of the robbery of the theories of intentional murder the fact the jury is instructed on accountability all those facts are interesting that's how the trial courts attributes of the situation played out the trial court with the easiest way to read the jury offense particularly in circumstances where the defense interest might be served by not having the jury instructed on that particular element i mean it gets back to my point so now right i knew we were in strict one territory but i don't think it would have been in a reasonable strategic decision for look at some point one five they realized that if anything communicated the notion of the defendant's liability in this case more severely or stark terms that certain point one five would have and declined to ask me instructions is worth is is really the core of his felony murder liability for the victim's death in this case if there are no other questions i would just close by saying this since nine hundred thirty five in this state universally ceded that reasonably might mean to subpoena that an attempted robbery would meet with resistance during which the victim might be injured by himself or or by someone else and those attempting to perpetrate the rock would be guilty of murder whether or not defendant correct and so why can't we trust their decision having been told that because i think that is a cause effect question they are not told foreseeability which is the direction foreseeable cuts accords that's a whole other question that's a would make a strategic decision how to approach since they made the decision not to to make this a central issue in this case however trial counsel's strategic decision doesn't