employees of the secretary of state's office why what was the manager the certainly the supervisor for that day who the basic the answer that he gave to a leading question was that mr child was not welcome at the facility another employee who testified was a security officer and she a by saying he couldn't return he may well have been him meant to say leave today don't come back today mr child testified that he were to a nearby restaurant and the policeman told him to go back property i did not find such a case trius understanding the witnesses in my personal opinion were about fifty fifty as to how well he spoke english some of the people said i spoke to him again and see able to communicate with him just fine miss ferguson said he said something i don't even know whether he was speaking english or some other man which i think it's notable that the emergency room the doctors spoke to him initially in english and then read vernier to a translator i think basically what they have shows is that mr chang might know some english not a suit remains relatively simple but when one gets into more complicated ideas or perhaps technical terms he's not so easy with those with those  assumed it was the massachusetts institute of technology wasn't also there to try to help people who knew the trickiness of the secretary of state office that's my impression and again he'd been through the process himself he knew about the testing i'm not saying he was completely on able to speak english at all i'm just saying that if i mislead based on his own testimony he was told to go away that day pm communion he went in there into his business he did everything he wanted to do up until the time that the clerk said your wife can't take the task and he got sacked and he didn't understand why she couldn't take the test so again whether the curtains tell him much for your neck or your quaid being able to understand why the secretary of state does what it does with an ability to understand english oh no no no ok i'll i'm saying is there who knows what the fertile to include who knows i am so no one told him you can't come in here you have to leave there on october twenty third i told the twenty third he knew that they were saying he was not allowed to go there on september twenty third but on september twenty third human october excuse me a figure that doesn't prove that until the twenty third he understood even less than allowed to come back that just means that by the time he gets a trial someone had explained to him what was going on and the whole basis for his upset was that he didn't understand what was going on  a problem about the knowledge instruction i would agree with your honor's because whether his english was good enough for him to understand it's certainly a fair question for the jury to decide but the jury clearly didn't understand every offense with which he was charged contained no elements and yet there was no definition of knowledge even after the jury specifically asked for it so i think in terms of what was clear to the jury certainly knowledge was not one of those things the jury there was a deadlock problem the children went into deliberate they came out with them i s there was a trial agree among the parties in the judge in which the judge gave them three options of what to do you just mentioned that he could give them a print instruction so clearly the judge knew that approving instruction was at certainly again his problem with the police officers removing him from from the facility was because he didn't understand why they were doing what they were doing he thought you can right to regardless of whether or not the defendant understood what i noticed not absolutely not why in terms of the statement very clearly i disagree with that it wasn't clear it was an answer to a leading question the fighting patrons out couldn't do it call the police and then the police told the defendant not to come back he came back anyway and the question was whether or not a notice from the down forgive me during the first is it did he call no police to have to deal with the situation and when the police came they escorted defendant out a reasonable inference is that the supervisor told the police that he did not want decided to come back to the d m v i mean there is no what's being told in any of us i mean he's there is a translator so the idea that he doesn't understand english is kind of beyond the pale if your honour's don't have any other questions on this point  discussed it but there's no indication at all i mean the cousin didn't do that and the people said that there's no indication the record that this was discussed at all was this no photocopy of the same piece of paper because  english there was a translator at this trial maybe i'm making assumptions but i think it's reasonable to assume that if in charge makes a decision to appoint a translator it's governments especially in circumstances where they knew they had at least one juror who was a holdout that on one hand you should listen to each other on the other hand you should not give up your strongly