your decision has substantial grave consequences not only to dana has a bring his two year old son his family but to many other people who are situated in this position i don't know about many other counties or chipping counties taking the position that metabolite sufficient to be convicted under the drug or tribe drug driving station so your decision is a rush i'm sure you realize that says substantial impact of many cases that are pending and likely to be  i don't disagree with you that later on down the road it does talk about in a section eight force specifically it does talk about other factors but when you look at the very premise of the statute that's released with the stage it starts off with i don't think the any impairment you made america people versus mine where there's substantial test misses spic or case and two thousand and thirteen that there was no impairment it made no difference that a seven billion so i don't remember the exact fraction but the supreme court said doesn't right you just can't write that quick step and it exactly right that the difference would be this if i had a girl for the next day and i had something in my system that shows i digested him and the cocaine up to six or nine days before and you can find a market this says yes at some point in time this person had used drugs it becomes a status crime the status of having ingested or used to try sometime in the past and this inconsistent with what unfair we should be looking at here and it's consistent in other ways too if you look at the definitions and i go through this a great list in my brief if you look at the definition so forth  drug substance or compote i don't think there's any in my view at least there's no there's no reasonable inference to be drawn that the resultant from way which means metabolite and the reason i say that is if you look at the utah statute the michigan statute all the statutes are talked about by the supreme courts and they go specifically and they explain unless you specifically a restriction to him a tab right metabolite is not something that is a should say as you look at it in reference to the controlled substance say there's nothing under the controlled substance act that says it's a drug or substance or anything as defined under the control substance say they made reference to the official pharm if you look at the statutes all of that was presented to the trash identified every exhibit i tended there for my instructions i tended them america there is no reference this is not a drug you have to make an incredible inference to say that what we're talking about here in light of the purpose of the statute is there a by product of the metabolic process is sufficient to be convicted and why i say that because of those other reasons too when you look at right and fair the legislative  of the drop still in your system there were some residue element of the drug in your system the argument by the defense nec case was judged it's so minor that it shouldn't qualify as presumed impairment substance in the war or urine resulting from the unlawful use of the cocaine well i think i understand what you're saying it takes it took me a long time to look at this and i think if you look at the the definitions under the actually the could be on oil control that talks about whether this is a controlled substance is a drug the substance reference when this is when certain certainly only meds to be the same thing we're talking about it can't w has a pot in the center console of his or her car with cannabis residue in it and a person didn't miss to smoking cannabis an hour before driving that person is not guilty of a dui unless there's further evidence pursuant to the case of people china i think you hit it right on the head these are arguments that are better direct the legislature as to what apparently defendant here thinks the law should be but is not what the law is the law here is if you have a drug a substance or a compound and it results from the unlawful use of a controlled substance you are guilty under a six which is a presumed impairment impairment is not something that has to be separately proven that was something that defense counsel conceded for the trial court when there were  get resident remains says and it is still scientifically that it's possible and for each defendant that would be stopped under that scenario if that residue is still there if and your blood and or urine has a substance resulting from the consumption of it on lawful the unlawful consumption of a controlled substance you  presumed impairment as president which is scientifically sound that's up for debate or is it you know the legislature has said that they are not going to enter into a  debate the impairment based on if you are two hours post cocaine or five days post post cain or any other controlled substance it is presumed that's what the legislature has written into this plain language of the statute it is these particularly these respectfully that's an argument in the legislature the courts have been clear at this point in this forum there doesn't have to be evidence of impairment is presumed and that's not the argument that we're making we have to deal with the absolutely no in the more days the statute provides that if there is probable cause based on a now rafts or the giving of a uniform citation that you harms of cocaine and cannabis and allowing there to be permissible uses for cannabis of they've made that distinction clearly and if there are further distinctions that will need to be made because of that again that's something that needs to get dressed across the street apologize if in my brief i initially misidentified the instruction that i believe the jury was referencing i reviewed the trial record and when the question came and there isn't any place in the trial record that it specifically identified which jury instruction they were referencing because of that i made an error in which one i believed to be counsel has presented although without citation that it's a different one than i had but base to defenseless the first offense was that this was not ingestion that resulted in and so i like i mean it was the natural process of digestion the trial court is this rock and she said elf and i don't want to mistake the record but i believe what she responded was and i believe that the question was is it a drug that is listed as a controlled substance and i believe the response was it's not a controlled it's not a ballistic controlled substance is the evidence you say there's evidence it was what where or what the evidence that it was a drug was her testimony that three drug tests were given and that this was a substance that was a positive indication on a drug test cleary and friends and a fair inference there is a drug that you're testing for drugs three different times it's positive it is a drug you can't change the characterization of what that test is a side of caffeine test it's not a sugar test the drug test it's testing for drugs and three different times that drove test was positive and apart from that she did testify as to its nature as a substance when she was explaining as justice turner brought up that cocaine is something that is broken down into other substances so there was direct testimony it's a drug it's a  entitle to a new trial a retrial or should be double jeopardy because isn't this a situation where we're giving the state if we send it back an opportunity to resume additional evidence that failed  a problem for the state if you know if you find it the other testimony that it wasn't a if you find if there isn't evidence that was a drug or a substance and i'm going to focus on those two because we have the drug testing we have heard testimony it's broken down into to put on at the first trial and therefore put the defendant in the jet i think it allows the state the opportunity to better articulate the evidence that was presented here or my that's ok this defense counsel said there were a lot of issues here we didn't get into all of them and i will be happy to answer any other questions you have put on other things other issues that were not specifically addressed here today i stand by my substance resulting from the unlawful use or consumption of the drug i believe that it's a substance resulting from the process of breaking the substance down is tied in cheshunt it's digestion so there's a big difference and there goes absorbed through the skin there are cases that talk about that so there's that it's not one hundred percent that's all i'm saying but there came up because i don't live testimony is really ever a trespasser really addressed in any meaningful way it just didn't really wasn't part of the yes most states tell me this three or four states put the word metabolite in and i don't think you know any good each one's a little different but it's just a name no it's an enormous and fair my my my client is now eleven years in