so i think this this conversation kind of gets to the nets and the supreme court case in its in which the court howel same as it's always held in this area which is generally when we get these letters or affidavits from j and they discussed it and sort of rogers and they don't discuss it in terms of structural air so no business controlling arguably on its face but i don't think it i don't think that it answers this question because if we agree that that holding the defense budget has my answer is a structural error i think it's pretty difficult to say well we agree that this is a fundamental right you have a fundamental right to travel or an unbiased jury but we're going to ignore it as part of the method whatever process if this information came to light during the course of a trial i think a trial judge and certainly speak to the juror i mean there are a lot of cases on this on this not in this particular allegation but in these kinds of things are alleged letter that's his interpretation now i think he was pretty clear and he said that the other jurors that were holding it against him but i think that in turn leads to why an evidentiary hearing is appropriate with new used the term that that you know there is a difference between you know that letter maybe in what we have here but the question is what does that show not what's on its face because if it was what's on its face showed bias then he would have had a new trial have that we were we would be there were we were to really we were well or one main reason and that main reason is right now about the rule against considering post trial communication from jurors is not doesn't say every single thing that comes from jurors you can out the judge's instructions not to consider that fact in any event we will not invite massive attack on the sanctity of verdi's by allowing the use of comments made during jury deliberations to suggest the jurors did not perform their duty to follow the law or otherwise sure some group whether it be a letter that show your nose the state's attorney whether it be an application to the state's attorney's office there is some piece of what you said outside evidence that supports the allegations if your sense i guess the answer would be yes and i certainly understand this court's concerns with this issue i i think this is a tough issue the reason i asked writing this case is because i feel like it is a tough issue but what we're left with here is if articles within that framework before thirty one and that is how they dress in those cases what they say is we don't have any record you can comply we don't have any you know we don't have the evidence of your earlier post position is  if the state of the law is that we ignore this then you have a right to an unbiased jury a fundamental right one bias jury only as long as you find out about bias prior to the announcement and again i just don't i see that as this as a fundamental problem if this same exact proposition were to come to the trial court's attention during trial and the trial courts that i absolutely refuse to acknowledge this i would onager who's doing things that she felt were improper and the issue was not lost in the trial which is of ignored it was to the trial court handle it properly and i think that just because we're finding out about it after trial i understand the course concerns about analogy