say thank you your honor the the crux of the the problem and i said probably it was the the reason why mr brown's trial was fundamentally unfair i think can infer that the conduct in the current case occurred now the additional language doesn't cure the problem and it and the additional language is that the jury was instructed well the evidence was that it hurt every day for a year and a half i mean when where there are some pretty substantial differences between what happened in this case and what happened in gibson in addition to the language judge by his pointed out think i don't think so the prosecutor in gibson argue the preponderance standard to the jury yes that didn't happen here did it no not it it actually did i mean the the prosecutor although stated several prosecution the state has to prove every fact necessary for the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and here you have juror is certainly left with with these instructions they could say look we don't know whether he had the opportunity i could assume that jurors follow instructions and we can envision the discussion in the jury room where one juror says well if he did that other thing he must have done this and some other jury of saying wait a minute the judge thank you for your argument we'll give you a minute when you come back up you can infer a predilection to commit future offenses and then draw a line out that from that to guilt now tell me how those boxes are different for this case as opposed to gibson which said you couldn't do that you couldn't use the preponderance of evidence standard to establish blocks one get to the inference and box two in from that go to guilt how is this case different from what i believe that there is a language and gifts in which which suggest that the biggest problem that the court had with that particular juror most of them are untrained in the law and the normal rational juror listen to the additional instruction in this case which tells the jury they cannot do it they soley on the unchurched acts and point box two and say we're not doing at based on box one we're doing based on box two your honor yes that's that's still a rational juror could even with this instruction come to the basic conclusion because he committed the prior offense he must have committed this the fans well i don't think so what's wrong with that logic well i don't think so because of the of the just additional instruction about slowly in a juror saying i'm not doing it solely based on the prior offense which is box one i'm doing it based on box two however in order to get from box one to two box to your honor it's and inference needs to be drawn there are instructions are given which are standard and it was given in this case which says that in france as also i have to satisfy reasonable doubt ok but this rational juror in my scenario is saying i'm in box two which is different from the prior from box one it's different from the prior uncharge for you to get from botswana box to is to me like you're telling me that it would be ok for a juror to do what i just described you're telling me that there are some protections that get you from box one to box two but that once you get the box to a rational juror using these instructions could say once i'm in box two this guy's guilty of maybe from separated from box one it's one entire package and if it's one entire package that is going to serve as the basis of a conviction then that specific clear language tells them they cannot do that they have to use other one i believe that it tells them to do that just as well as with the this particular instruction that we're talking about here well tells them to do things that are different from not only this instruction but the gibson instruction one is it's not sufficient by itself to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the charge crime correct right that's correct also tells at the end of the instruction very important one item for you to consider along with all the other evidence in determining whether the defendant has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge crime that's not present in this case as we would submit that through a juror reading arava that new instruction tells them clearly that the inference is just one part of the puzzle it's very clear and that in any case the state has to prove this crime beyond a reasonable doubt it's  however the gist of it and the essence of it is we would submit already reflected in not only this particular instruction in question that we're focusing on in this case but also in other instructions that are also present for the jury to look at as a whole they are in fact told to review the instructions as a whole can you imagine this these instructions being used in say a bankruptcy a bank robbery context someone gets killed because the teller said i think i saw joe smith in the bank the day that it was wrong and i'm pretty sure he was hanging around the other person who robbed the bank and by a things start pretty much loaded and you're your honour's hypothesis i hypothetically i think one is i i think maybe pertain to counsel subsequent claim that it's a name irrational inference doubt one who commits a prior and sex crime to commit the instance i don't know whether you're one hundred suppressing that or your honor still i'm just asking you if you could imagine this procedure being used in the standard crime well i cannot envision it in a bank robbery because sex crime is a unique animal of itself and there are studies that support that people who had committed a sex crime have pertains to sex crimes yes it pertains to sex but this is the only one hanging around the system gibson took care of this stuff after it the new instructions are clearly takes care of  that the court of appeals did not act and reasonable in saying that this particular instruction would not have misled the jury and i think that's very important but even with even with analysis of us constitutional law ok and i see other questions thank you very much for your argument very interesting case we appreciate both sides arguments in the historic good will be submitted for decision