there was enough evidence at trial there through samone scott and it was haven police department violated my fourth amendment right simone testify that he secured the scene by instructing the officers to go into my house station two offices in the house then him into more offices went into my house scott detained me in my kitchen for approximately five hours without allowing me food or use of the bathroom and also because the moanin scut was offices for the police west haven police department samoan sky and west haven police offices a department head limited authority to into my house and  and his testimony testified that he searched my house without a warrant yet the district court said that it decided before simone testified that it cared change that decision for anything with simone said after the death had already been se that's a troublesome thing and i'm going to ask the government where the rule was anything that you could have done after simone testified to say hey the previous decision was wrong that that's for question because at the time book or rule simone's testimony wasn't there an in depth time there was no evidence that simone entered the house or ordered people and that prematurely because in a judge and in the trial courts charge to the jury the judge said evidence is testimony of witnesses on both sides and you know i feel if the jury can sit in my testimony by and they have considered his testimony you know so it was they dismissed him premature and they should have heard all the testimony before dismissing him especially as i said in light of the fact that simone did testify th searched my house without a search warrant secured the scene by ordering scott to detain me in the kitchen without food water use a bath for him i mean they could have lease you know and have allowed th so so that's my whole thing there was no exigent certain circumstances to justify their actions there was no evidence that i had committed a crime no it was the any form of hot pursuit simone had testified that witnesses informed him that my son hakim and another male mate would be prior to getting in a r jaguar jaguar however none of these witnesses testified at trial in any event despise self does not support any form of probable cause and as i said the co events that occurred by simone by simone scott and the west haven police department this testimony is highlighted in my brief on pages seventeen eighteen nineteen and twenty as well as the trial transcript i provided to the court also i want to point out the court the trial court denied me did your recent election transcript so it is impossible to prepare an address judge calgary's is concerned yes thank you may please the court the problem with all due respect your honor the problem with your concern is that i'm trying a case before judge under hill and the burden is on the plaintiff so if i get a favorable ruling on officer simone then i can allow off from on to simone to testify i don't have the burden to prove her case so if i didn't get a fix what i want to know is once simone got up in the last of the nine when he was a kid and manages to make things vio are way beyond what simone said when he got there was evidence that he was involved you one at the stage at the end of the plaintiff's evidence because there was no evidence here simone didn't need to get up there i don't know why you put him there but once he was here there was evidence that he was involved and what i want to know is is very anything that a plaintiff could have done then reach the decision that was done before a decision that knowing what we know then was later was wrong even void was right when it was made i would argue no and here's why i don't think you can i'm making a decision whether to have a witness testify if the ruling is different i don't have the witness testify i don't again i don't have to provide evidence to prove her case i understand that but it is offensive after some thirty has ruled in your favor to have somebody come in and say ah it doesn't matter here's what i actually did that is not something that one would want and what i want to know is is very something through as rule sixty b is for some way at that point that somebody can say perhaps i hadn't proved my case then but now given what is in testimony we can do something about it but her trial attorney to preserve the right after the ruling could have taken x an exception after the simply go in back and saying i want to reconsider that does no good what i want to know is whether very is a procedure that allows when subsequent testimony comes in the previous decision and the reason i want to know it exists pretty killer case is because vis is somebody who is pro se so that if there is a procedure that a lawyer could have used then the question is do we do something about it when a person who does not have a lawyer and is not likely to know about a procedure big you yourself can't tell me about here in open court he was represented by aware of any other depositions no however i would point out to the court that miss adams detective pouliot was found to be the one controlling the scene i guess i would see this as harmless error anyway the jury had someone who controlled the scene if her rights were don't see how you can say as a matter of law that simone was not involved it's possible that a jury would find that that involvement wasn't enough that if you had simone's later testimony before i don't see i can't imagine that your gender bill would have ruled the way he did that basis as a matter of law again i may not have called their minds i didn't know that i was necessarily ahead tonight police off you if you had one simo why i wanted simone and therefore felt like i had no there was no harm in putting him on a hand and i mean that i felt good that i had won i had prepared that argument i had won that argument and then there was no risk on putting off system on again the burden is on the plaintiff so i don't have to make the plaintiff's case for them yeah but you see this opens up the r no evidence at simone did so you come in and you get a ruling in favor of simone having gotten vet who you vent bring in symbol who says don't mean that that's what happened i did the whole making would cause of that to be a real possibility and i don't see how we can be in a position to say hey that's great that's lovely well let's remember there was a individual shot on on the appellant's front lawn the main suspect was her son the officers came to secure the premises i think that's the best way to do it all of that is fine that that's beside the point of what was decided in that case and it is now an appeal there are lots of things that are being talked about like was david and scott who have been dropped you know over loss of things that aren't here this is the only point biddies here and and he had he guided the officers were the officer some months back before judge arnold getting the search warrant so i would say if you feel the fallback position of that is it's harmless error if there is