reversed because it was part of the double jeopardy principles i'm prepared to answer any questions regarding our second argument or reasonable doubt claim or our third argument which was alternatively that the car should be remanded for six o five  it might be at least arguable that it was granted more as a motion to dismiss the charge because it went to something i that resolution of a question of fact is up when you get to the end of  part of the analysis which is articulated in martin and which is whether the child restocked some or all of the factual elements of the offense charge and i think the question is at least the question i have which is what happened here indeed the judge found the defendant guilty of count four which is unlawful possession and the offense charged in count one was guilty answered by judge or a jury and here we have a judge who says he will be found not guilty of count on our violence unequivocally without and correction and then there is another resolution correct or not of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charge so they're suggesting you don't just look at the label not guilty no matter look at what it represents and i think i mean that's the issue he found the defendant guilty of the possession count so i mean there wasn't any thing he found the reasons are dead wrong but there were no reasons given here in a sense all the judge did was say that i find the defendant not guilty of count two and not guilty of count three zero for count one false so that's not really giving reasons or an analysis of the happiness you know explaining the difference in charges or how it's logically necessary given what the charges were in the indictment and when the prosecutor heard that that's when the prosecutor peter asked you know forty lines later in the record well judge will you clarify so that's what it was so i i'm wondering whether i don't see how that really is the judge giving the reasons for his findings and i agree that the indignity doesn't merit all about whether it's a clinical or unequivocal how much time has passed i look at those cases truly as something which has been determined only get there is an acquittal so there has been acquittal and i think that to some degree on some of those cases i'm not sure i understand the reason the core and lead that the court is really trying to some of what may or may not be an acquittal but certainly it's looking at on its face at least in a couple these cases on its face are we all aware that in fact the court that well i think that i don't know that there's a difference between bench trials and jury trials but certainly if you come back a week later and say you know i had a chance to rethink this i didn't really understand it that's a mistake of law our mistake of fact on that but i think when the judge by his very words at the time he's saying it says something which on its face can and cannot be taken as going to the elements of this crime i mean it would be the same to me there were only been a charge of possession of cannabis but there was some indications to the fact that there was a controlled substance in the room or something but it was never charged and the judge says you know i can't find him guilty of control themselves and possession of controlled substance i judge articulated i'm finding him guilty because i found i found the dispelling that was not there but that's not an acquittal because at the time he's sending it he's not making any determination that can be considered to be an a you have to look when you have the actual intent expressed as sort of like this speaking the content expressed that shows that the word acquittal you know or the word and not you know not guilty on this is not really what the talked about in terms of equivocation i thought that really what they were doing is looking and saying ok there were stuff there was a determination here on the elements but it wasn't finalized by the court the court left it open and said i'm thinking of s that works we have to look at is there a terminations of an element that is truly not even within the fence and in terms of michigan case they were dealing with burning down other property but i don't i don't think that there's a real reason the distinction between those two because the predicate offense is still that i mean that really i'm using that as the offense but the predicate offense has its own elements and becomes an offense which is then obviously save time so that it basically cancels out the words that you're saying because the words do not they're not the equivalent of what you're articulating at the same time and for that reason i think there was there was not an acquittal here reconsider his decision or verdict within thirty days of the day to pronounce is the verdict in a bench trial only in favor of the facts you cannot change it to be in favor of the state