plainly said this the court should consider the report so prepared under the director of direction of the director of the department of corrections and any other role than information submitted by  yeah our position is simply this the only clean obvious way to read it stand is the witness to state with all the trial is the person who wrote we believe that is prejudicial because the state's own is young to testify regarding her in two of my clients the cooperation or lack thereof in the street and program what  i didn't hear was sure the instructions tell the jury what it should the instructions told the jury if you five for your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proven by fear of convincing evidence you should find that consider as somehow prohibiting the court from considering anything else in the role and the statute requires that in order to consider at a minimum two things first the socio psychiatric report and second be any relevant information made by the defendant no the fact that the court is required to consider these two things a minimum does not mean that or consider other rogue nations and here it seems that there's nothing that would be much more relevant t taishan of the statue with seemingly none of the court would only consider the report itself and yet the defendant's not here arguing that the evaluator can't testify and he's made no effort to explain why it is that to this test now as to what seems to be defendant's primary issue with respect to the explicit finding i must admit i feel like i'm perhaps i'm missing something here the defendant concedes that the jury was properly instructed and those instructions were as follows and i'm quoting in order for you to find the responded to still be a sexually dangerous person the state must prove the following proposition therefore proposition  the evidence that each of these propositions as been proven by player convincing evidence you should find the respondent is still a sexually dangerous person after being so instructed the jury returned a verdict finding that the defendant were made especially dangerous person read into a bench opinion then there's no way to be read into the verbal so we basically arguing is that the instructions for rendering a verdict form were not enough and that i guess the magic words substantial probability have to appear in the now there is no authority for this and in fact he's given absolutely no reason why proposition instructions were in murder cases countless other criminal offenses and yet the context of essentially dangerous person they somehow still box moreover it must be pointed out error here was invited by the defendant himself which he doesn't dispute or address and his reply brief and i say this because the propositions instructions were specifically entered by him and in fact he explained to the court that under the mattress and case the four elements had to be and eventually verisign instructions the court agreed with them and actually disagree with the state and gave the instructions he asked he also submitted a verdict form that was and under the doctrine of invited fair the defendant cannot ask the court to proceed in one way and then turn around in appeal complaining that the court err essentially for agreeing with the very thing that he asked for to do and that's precisely what we have here  and and again he agreed to will refer folk eat but tender be the verdict for how substantively are dental for the states and then separately actually agreed that the state form should be given that was given say but in a finding and it's a form of a verdict that was not not the former verdict my client would want it anyway and i would submit two things one is i'm not sure that i have that my client i would argue that it is the burden of the party who wants a particular verdict to make sure that that verdict is rendered completely proper but the second argument i would make is that job but one state th again i i understand but i don't believe that this is an instruction per se it is a verdict form and it ultimately the issue is with the finding of the fact finder not i mean legally constitutionally  to do in the future this is like minority report but in real life and so we need the jury in this game to understand appreciate and make that actual fight we find it