people i'd like to say st that i don't think it's accurate to say that judge white did not find any serious probably cation existed in the course of this offense what he actually found was that there was a cooling off and that was why he didn't think he didn't think it was a immediate reaction then we reduce the degree of difference to nd degree murder but the interesting thing about the whole thing  of course he was sentenced to forty five years the st time and then this is a reduced sentence to thirty eight years this and judge white did not extensively but significantly about scuffles that he's had since the sentencing but still didn't get one of those accounts to tell right right right so and still reduced the amount so i thought that was rather interesting well if he had any and he never really explain was to tell the judge not to consider the impact statements from other relatives so those were considered he did make some comments about mitigating factors that he said walter intelligent and articulate the offense was his provocation granted fact i think it was i think it falls into the classic category of serious from occasion that would ordinarily reduce an offense to nd degree murder but the judge the state is saying that you can't have strong provocation unless the provocation is direct and immediate but i think in this situation where a judge weighed down the sensually there was serious revocation initially he punched him in the face and applying that terminology well you're looking at that with respect to at particular time frame i believe from what i read was he not looking at it with respect to what transpired during that timeframe and what transpired was the fact that they both went out of the apartment together to buy cigarettes when they were leaving they were laughing they were joking it when they came back they were amiable at that point when they came back into it so rather than him necessarily focusing on the moment before this happened i believe as i read it he was focusing on what happened what their behavior was these of each other during that period of time was there direct provocation was an immediate response and if there wasn't then you can't have any kind of mitigation in the sense of whether there was probably fish there so still was provocation leading up to this happened decades ago we had to write provocation here we just don't have an immediate response although i do have to say you know when i was reading through this record and reading through the various hearings the also seem to be in that in which the judge heard their ships i mean this undercurrent that there's also things going on around them and maybe not even under her maybe even more actually just in your have based upon what he said while he is stabbing the victim he's saying you're dead and you won't be able to hurt me or hurt riley i think i guess so i'm  might have to live with they are now within this the there parameters of st degree what should the judge consider and i mean i i do not sure that necessarily i would have said there was a cooling off period but hate how can i find that the judge was wrong because he said that that's a death his opinion as opposed to meet the press statutory finding but i think there's a distinction between whether there's a cooling off period that this type of violent behavior was typical for these two went back a lot of different years in terms of their kind of changes which he would each other well let me yes but and so he couldn't have thought well you know maybe it's not publication because of the type of behavior it started out to be was a case it wasn't unusual for those two to go at it with each other i am when the defendant said you asked for a lighter sentence you asked me you asked me to rehabilitate and not to do that you know i think there are several meetings that there are one of which certainly know he went over the criminal history and i believe there was a statement that it was not that bad he graduated high school with and could help the system had completely failed him as a juvenile hand reduction after sentencing to only the fact that there were several victim impact statements that were considered this time by the fact that the court did go through mitigating factors in he made it through high school in spite of that he had not shown much since then while he not employment he did not maintain jobs and really wasn't showing that much productive ness post high school there were some family members a bit of there and grandmother or something like that and since he was in walker sort of aged out together maybe one was a little older than the other but so he is just finishing high school maybe attributable to the fact that you know d c if this pushed them or one of the foster homes was doomed but if those weren't the most education up to the point of august of two thousand and eleven there were acts some trial and speeding committed by the defendant so that was appropriate for the judge to consider in finding a likelihood of th that there was a cooling off period and i believe the quote was that everything was fine or everything that was ok they had reconciled we had read this testimony that they were joking and laughing defendant said that he accepted his apology and then riley observed the defendant walking probably piecing said going back and forth across the dining room and then appeared in the bathroom counsel's going to believe with respect to this cooling off period is here prosecution whether there was a cooling down period did you have an opportunity to retreat or did you bring the fight back to the person did you have an opportunity to contact these or some other member of the public here being punched and it was after saying we're good i'm a soldier and forgiving him it is the judge's finding was not an abuse of disc you think and thank you for your arguments today we will take the matter under advisement we will issue a decision in due course we will now stand trial jurors pending our conversation with