in our intention to go in to seal proceedings however if the minds of argument and questioning cause either of you to think that pass necessary on please do let us know  for them or if either of you think that the lines of argument in questioning on should lead to you you needing to respond not only in a sealed way but also ex parte you have the defendant david wright it's my intention today to address some of the arguments certainly reducing our grief both having to do with the judge's handling of the jury during the course of the trial the first is an issue that demonstrated the jurors clear bias on behalf of the government and this is something that the court was required to forcefully address to ensure that no other members of the jury had so i wonder if you might move to the jury instruction i should really thank you sure so the second issue that i'm sure i guess is the instruction on count four which was the charge and you can argue the case however you would like and certainly if my colleagues want to pursue this more of that that's fine with me on i thought that this was largely a purely legal issue it's going to rise or fall on that same passage on this same cal didn't the judge instruct the jury correctly that you would have to find that they acted at the direction of the terrorist organization or the cord nation with the terrorist organization certainly given that we're supposed to view the jury instructions as a whole given the top line statement of the elements of the offense is on your view a correct statement and other words the statement by the judge that  find that's my that's my problem i have just met but this your statement that you can be guilty if you are found to have acted in coordination with the terrorist organization there you have no problem with that statement outstanding loan just legally describing a district court at that point and describing what counts as coordination should i read that it is a stealing or a statement that displaces the first statement which said you have to coordinate with a terrorist organization coordinating with the territories ition you have to be doing that but you can be doing it by just coordinating with strategy and tactics where the express direction of it you want us to read this is what coordination here's the score with the strategy and tactics of the organisers so one of the preserved objection on that point that the judge i'm paraphrasing but i think the judge said something to the effect of actually i think creased  because i've sort of limited the government to proof of actual coordinate with respect to those two things and again a stretch baron has asked we have to sort of figure out well with the jury have understood that that's what the judge intended to do five he was doing in did do it so my question then is the government in closing on does make a point of that and can we consider that can we consider the totality of everything that the jury had or are or should we stop that and you know a jury could be confused about this because this instruction taken in isolation is not correct it's too broad and even fanciful but presumably during the period of time in which if they were using the emergency us border they would have been using it your client had been conversation other human being correct yes or no of a cell phone so just to make it trivial i assume you could have said well during this period of that would put the lie to or put the test to on the government's emergency determination you still have the opportunity for business action right necessarily in your case but theoretically entirely out of the realm of possibility there are some cases where it probably would not permit you to go forward but you certainly could i see cases total mistaken identity yes and particular issue of happiness so i'm just trying to get at whether the only possible way that this can be reviewed is in an ex parte proceeding in the current in the criminal action i'm trying to i'm trying to understand whether there are other challenge your beer is is to make a facial challenge it is if you have information that would lead one reasonably just suspect that it was the surveillance yes that you object to right you might possess that information but challenges this is basically committed to the process to get part of the process and that's what the judge is supposed to do was just to look at the particular authorities whatever they may be in a given case and find out whether the statute i had lots of conversations during this period of time with some of the people that they reference some of those conversations were not of a type that would be put anyone strife i press and mostly would be conversations with a person who would be seen as conspiring with me and there is no indication that i can think of a day with no now is having any particular culture been particularly important ok video and it says how they like to do things and then i say gee that's inspiring and i do that thing that would seem to be coordinating with the tactics of charity but that wouldn't constitute quid meeting with the organization wh took something away from the need to show coordination with the organization itself and it can i we disagree on whether that i would disagree with that occurred but that to me is an up in the middle of that situation it's a question about whether the elements meeting was altered in some to you know provide yourself as personnel and the only things that can sort out of a city are a bad thing entirely independently and there is simply no suggestion here i don't think this is a case where the judge's instructions or however it may have been imperfect led down a path that took us out of