you either have it on vibrate oh that you cut it out it might be dire consequences if the cell phone should go off but hopefully that won't be the case if you have any doubt check it now and put it on vibrate away from it in addition to our hearing it the argument is recorded for later use so please stay in the matter i get there and bow means as the court is asking you questions please answer the court's questions the read like will not save you from answering the court's question with that we call to the podium mr good it please the court good morning my name is tommy good one i'm from the mississippi attorney general's office and i represent the defendant appellant sharon hampton in this case this is an appeal from a jury's verdict in the northern district of mississippi finding that sharon hanson was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiffs thereby causing their injuries as the chief judge has said i welcome any questions from the court and waive an uninterrupted argument for the first half of my time the first issue that i would like to discuss is the fact that there was insufficient evidence at trial to support the jury's finding the defendant appellant sharon hanson was deliberately indifferent to the safety of the plaintiff on the day in question in this case there was a general evidence so there was evidence of a general history of violence at the prison where this attack occurred this attack occurred at mississippi state penitentiary and unit thirty two b isn't bravo in july of two thousand and seven are they any are there any  that a jury had to resolve all of the ultimate legal conclusion of deliberate indifference no your honor in minds a jury question if there are no factual disputes for them to resolve jury the question is a legal one whether or not there was deliberate indifference and the so the jury was free to make that determination based on the jury instructions they were given but as the court's pointed out there was there was no dispute about the facts in this case  to correct your own in this case there was there was evidence of a general history of violence there was testimony that's under spewed that christopher rep said this facility was a dangerous place and it was dangerous because on the day in question the state of mississippi housed its most dangerous inmates in this facility they like every other state has to make a determination of where to house and how to house their most dangerous and maids in this case this unit how mostly gang members and inmates that were bent on committing acts of violence against each other and there was evidence of that at trial however there was no specific evidence at trial of any specific acts of violence in particular at the exercise pans where this attack occur and the issues that i think is most important in this case is what guidance does a general history of violence give to a correctional officer like sharon hampton on the day in question when she handed the block going to lieutenant taylor and went inside to obtain a phone what did she know she knew and this and i mean you and puke knowledge of this to her she knew she worked in a dangerous place with lots of dangerous man who were bent on committing acts of violence but what god it's does that give her and this case the only guidance that that gives her is don't ever make a mistake because you work in a dangerous facility that is saying this is that it creates a strict liability situation but it certainly creates a situation where negligence becomes actionable  accounts wasn't the jury given an instruction that said that mere negligence is not a sufficient basis upon which plaintiff may recover damages against the defendant they were despite what you say about mere negligence they were instructed that they couldn't hold reliable from your neighbors  and there was there was absolutely nothing going on on the yard that morning prior to that she was aware of or that anyone was aware of any other correctional officers were aware that would give her pause to say wait a minute there's a risk of harm present here and yes to the united states supreme court former v brennan said that subjective knowledge can be proven with circumstantial evidence that violence was longstanding in pervasive but the facts and farmer and the facts in this case are very different and farmer you had a pre operative transsexual who had a very useful in feminine appearance he was who did not want to be moved to a prison where there was a longstanding history of rape and that case prison officials have a very clear risk that's that's that's apparent to them one that in that case there was evidence that they actually drew the inference there might be a problem they drew the inference that this person was vulnerable and and so they had a very clear risk that they were being faced with and they had an effect  just the regular general prison population that's what unit thirty two was designed for the worst of the worst the most violent the mentally ill the members of gang leaders of gangs in particular yes you're on and that was further testimony that there was gang warfare going on as among the gangs that were housed in unit thirty two yes your honor in fact the testimony was that they had basically been at war for some period of time that  that's just the nature of games they're attempting to impose their will on each other on a constant basis but what farmer says about that though with is that you don't get to incarcerate people and then just because they are violent antisocial about the pins and you for me with testimonies in the brief the reason you check them in these pins is because the inmates and he says the pins are on a concrete slab and what they would do they were taken make a shank out a wire in the fence they will i mean they could tear it up and then he goes on and talks about the dangerousness it seems to me suggesting by this even the dangerousness and the pins there is no evidence that there had been a break out in the paeans once you once you know thirty two is moved into these pins and not just into open exercise but there was apparently evidence of destruction within the pins checking within the pins to see what shanks had been developed so it seems to  your point is that until that had been a breakout in the pins despite the violence otherwise and the efforts to tear apart the pins the could not be deliberate indifference we need a first incident expert even alluded to this or testified that you know inmates are creative and he wasn't talking about parchment he was talking about in his experience inmates are creative and can create issues and avoid security and do things that are in violation of protocols and that is a fact of life in prison whether it's in the pens or it's in their cells or it's in their job in the kitchen they will fashion weapons wherever and however they can however the fact that they're fashioning weapons doesn't mean that they're using doesn't mean they're committing acts of violence with those weapons breakout no you're on the the evidence is undisputed in this case that you had t law and their single person pans one inmate goes and by himself and at the bottom where the door and the slab meet the department of corrections had welded a metal plate there too because there was a little gap between the the slab and the door they had mailed it welded a metal plate there to prevent people from escaping underneath the door sliding now these inmates had solved the plate and kicked on it enough if they actually got that loose and slid out from on miss hampton had no way of knowing that it's undisputed that she had no knowledge whatsoever that anything was going on with the pans when she went testimony that they did it in a matter of minutes but i believe the the the ones that actually did it said they've been working on it for some time i can say they go out to these pans on a daily basis to exercise considering the evidence  to the verdict is there evidence in this record that she did not go for one to two minutes that sheep and she was not going to get a form at all because she didn't testify at the trial about the foreman it was in the document and because she was gone for much more than one to two minutes that that the jury could disbelieve her explanation that she went in to get a form because it was there were some inconsistency is that possible on this record can you clarify that for me it's not possible and yes your honor i can clarify that i believe that the the plaintiff discussed that in their supplemental brief in a trial attempted to attempted to impeach miss hampton about that and they said well you said it she testified at trial that she wanted to get a form for one of the inmates samuel williams was appointed and because he was refusing to leave his panel was holding up your call until he got the form so she ran inside to get that was her testimony that's why she ran and when she was and when she was interviewed by the indias see the department of corrections investigators right after this incident she told them that she ran inside and i don't believe there was she didn't give more detail to them and i don't believe they asked and so the point is attempted to try to say well that's a contradiction that you didn't fully explain why you went inside there were a couple of instances where the planes if they tried  to create a contradiction where there was not one she simply provided more detail as to why she did something in trial and so the jury is free to make reasonable inferences absolutely but they can't make on reasonable ones that amount to mere conjecture or speculation and that's what that would fall into the category of speaking about mir's conjectures speculation can you address your causation point please speedy trial samuel williams one of the point of said he was in a panel right next to lieutenant taylor when it happened and they were actually carrying on a conversation casually when it occurred these two an inmate attackers run up he's sitting guys are within a matter of feet from them the testimony at trial was samuel williams said well they were no more than from me to mock turning who was questioning him so it's just a matter of ten maybe fifteen feet at most he levels the guy there is this moment where they confront each other they stare at each other nobody moves and he flees from the inside there was absolutely no testimony whatsoever that he attempted to fire the gun that he seemed frustrated with  didn't fire because he knew the gun was unloaded there's no testimony or evidence whatsoever that he knew anything about that gun be much more plausible to say that he thought it was loaded he'd been out in the yard with it himself during the day and he checked it out in fact that's another important point in this is that it was undisputed that the person who checked out the block gun at the beginning of the day was responsible for loading the block and that during the day during your call the officers were not to open the block going in check it because if it's like a single shot shotgun if you break it down to check it you can't far it until you break it to you put it back together and well and the training that they've been provided on  on is you cannot break it open during your call because if you do then you're vulnerable to attack from an end and so everyone is operating on this sumption that day that lieutenant taylor who checked the blood going out and he was first out there on your call had loaded the gun when he checked it out from inventory and so you have sharon hampton believing herself that it's loaded because her supervisor checked it out handed it to her and it would have been against protocol for her to even check it and then you've got taylor with the gun there was no no evidence that he knew the gun was unloaded and he just run probably wasn't protocol also that she would have two extra bullets that done is that right that was protocol yes your honor she had those books your show there was then when she handed off the gun to taylor she fit she thought about the fact that she had those bullet and then she decided not to hand them over in their correct as correct the testimony is undisputed that they were does it does that indicate that him i'm sorry she didn't i'll make it very very that's correct your honor she made she testified it was under speeded up i thought i would go inside for a minute save and get this form and come right back and that there and i could do so without incident the difference is it was a conscious decision but in many cases where we're talking about deliberate indifference conscious acts are still no more than negligence that certainly weighs into the fact and into the discussion that it was conscious rather than completely unconscious but at the end of the day it's negligence because she didn't she didn't didn't have notice that anything was about to happen she had no notice of any kind of risk only yard that morning all she knew was she worked in a dangerous place one thing it's always tr rushing the guards and it doesn't seem to me the blot game was designed to stop more than one person rushing i'm going to do time for me with their evidence on that point yes your honor there is extensive talk about the blog on about how it was unloaded that it was a non lethal device that was just like a single shot shotgun that you had to break it down and then to put in an extra pellet bring it back together and the testimony as i mentioned earlier was that these attackers were just a matter of from from this podium to the to the court from the officers and so they had a single shot weapon into a man with homemade knobs in their hands who wanted to kill him and there's just no way that he could i mean he was at best going to be able to shoot one and then the other was going to stab the other was going to be own him and he was going to have to fight him off hand to hand bottom out and stabbing them in the other inmates that's true and i'm sorry for the confusion taylor was not there in all be all target but he stood in their way of achieving their goal which was to kill the pointers because he was on security with the blog and when they escaped he didn't stay there long he got out of there and his testimony in that's in the record said that he thought they were coming at him to killing and he threw the drop the keys had no idea intentional if you didn't he just got the heck out of there and that's when he said no and all the speculation about what his motive was is nothing but pure speculation that has been alarmed by his own statement which is the only evidence in the non people are looking for from now on the one thing that is perplexing for me in your argument is that i think i'm correct that you accept far your opponent except form of the deliber indifference instruction was given those opposing it when i read this whole trial record especially this hampton's cross examination and then the intense closing arguments that seem to be in your response to judge jelly's first question is difficult because she insisted throughout it was a mistake the cross examination was no it's not she said well if anybody's at fault it's a tenet tale then a closing argument same issue the whole closing argument battle in front of the jury is jury you've got side is this negligence or is this criminal recklessness and then then this would be my question for you as i read it the expert for the plaintiffs i'm not sure how you pronounce his name fell the believe in swartz a failing a failing he specifically opponents on the ultimate issue a c enter this was deliberate indifference and there's no objection you try to keep him out but he ends up testifying and it's not an issue on appeal so how is what what's the point of the trial if the position now is this could never even been a disputed fact well certainly the you're correct there was no objection he was the attempt was made to exclude him as an expert and there was no objection to that testimony i don't believe that your are incorrect on that  however there was also testimony by the defense expert just the opposite right and certainly the jury can make a determination about that but your position has to be the jury can't make it that's got to have i mean i don't put words in your mouth but but the whole trial was about exactly this  question as i read it  and not sure that i completely agree with i believe that there was insufficient evidence to prove that but i don't believe that the jury i just believe there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict on that and again this is the we have a a prison that is in every state has to make a determination where to house their most dangerous inmates and does this create or would verdict create a situation where the most dangerous facility in texas the most dangerous facility in louisiana where suddenly there would be almost strict liability for the correctional officers working in those facilities because when christopher epps said on the stand it's a it was a dangerous place at that time that he was speaking the truth and i believe any prison official or superintendent or commissioner in texas and louisiana talking about the unit where they keep their most dangerous inmates would have to admit the same thing but that doesn't mean that in susan thank you your own but that doesn't mean that there's a specific enough threat or there's good morning your honour's minute please court my name is victor flate us from tupelo mississippi i'm here on behalf of the plaintiffs apple lees in this case after a long hotly disputed trial in which practically every question that arose during the course of the testimony was disputed during which time the jury and the judge had the opportunity to gauge the credibility of th whether or not those witnesses had been impeached whether or not those witnesses recollection was strong or not the jury who was properly instructed there was absolutely no objections this case presents an absolutely clean issue of a properly instructed jury on the proper standard deliberated for several hours and concluded based on in iraq the tories the chair in hampton was deliberately indifferent on july twenty seventh of two thousand and seven at unit thirty two b in par that conclusion by the jury is supported by more than just a mere scintilla of evidence there was sufficient evidence in this record a hotly disputed record from which that indifference upon undisputed facts is a legal question and noted that it's a legal fact question up to a point but ultimately be a becomes a legal question only where facts are absolutely undisputed part are the disputed facts the disputed facts here that that that i think that that do raise a fact question are these are the factual issues regarding shared hanton she perceived the risk that there would be something happen and there'd be no when your nation to protect a coworker or another inmate that is to specific risk that she took and that she was aware of when she went into the room to retrieve that  was there any evidence of any specific information that would have led someone to think that more likely something's going to happen today or tomorrow or this week very specific other than just a general history of violence do we have anything specific that would have put the guards on alert that something's going to happen separate and aside from just from the general conditions of violence and unit thirty two which is a heightened level of violence from anywhere else i would suggest and probably at that time anywhere in the country commissioner epps testified specifically this attack was going to happen to your client either on the your in the cells walking to and fro he described going to happen to your clients either out on the pens or somewhere and i understand he didn't say this is going to happen tomorrow and i understand he didn't say it might not be a week from now there was also testimony from ricky s sharon hampton know at the time is what we need to focus on what is a good support well i think what's there to support this is her admission that yeah i went in there with the ammunition leaving an empty block gun and i i knew i shouldn't have and i didn't the that the injuries to these plaintiffs were balun to happen if you ini evidence that she knew that level of specificity at the time or you the chrysippus knew it at the time no she wouldn't have known specifically targeted to those three individuals and i think abscess testimony goes to every inmate out there in those pens given the fact that security threat group officer scott who testified said aside from the fact of everything else there was an ongoing separate from the fact you've got violent gang members here there was specifically a gang war going on at that time and testimony from commissioner apps that a loaded semi automatic pistol was found in unit thirty to be within what a week prior to this incident taking place and i believe commissioner at stated he felt it was connected somehow to this in the well known point i was going to evidence that she knew the gun was unloaded there is no direct evidence or admission from sharon hampton that she knew the weapon there is no evidence of any coming up believe that there is a shot until jury is entitle to banner i don't think so out of the fact that there were two rounds in the gun was empty and that she had a standing post order obligation to that weapon her refusal to check it have been several shifts on that and the first time point she really tailor right her supervisor right i dispute the fact in fact he was not her median supervisor he was a lieutenant supervisor but she was access to these victims would not possible so why do you take an informed judgment against taylor is that right i can spell it out for the court your honor there were a series of what we would constitute were deliberate in different acts by various defendants including johnson and lieutenant taylor and a bunch of them were dismissed of ten taylor was you're the natural target so i guess you took the default and he's judgment proof or not you for the hamptons verdict pursuant to our tort claims act yes the judgment would have to be authorized by the legislature they would have to pass a special belittle order to fund any judgment in this case why don't you go after whoever was suspect those well those who were that was mr davenport we did bring mr davenport to trial and mr davenport was dismissed on a rule fifty motion we did take him to question yes you're on your knowledge that the pivotal point here is the awareness card just disregard the state of the subjective element of lieutenant have to correct yes your honor our i've read the examination of miss hampton across back and forth and set of my impression she may have been combative she don't remember what was in de but i don't see where you queried her about what her awareness was about the condition of the prison and the specifics of the peanuts the breath of this testimony goes back and forth about good you know the one pellet why did you go inside sara just goes on ad nauseum really and so given that that's a critical piece here you're not dispositive but a critical in the subject is your argument that expert can't supply the mental status of ms hampton through his testimony on the ultimate issue when there is no testimony elicited from her about her state of mind on this issue from a question the testimony developed a line of questioning developed by the state was dismissed just a mistake oh no no this is her testimony back front otherwise and i'm saying in that question there is no question by anybody at least that i saw about what's near here about the state prison the pan the whole nine yards i don't see that so i'm asking given as to think it's a mess that your expert testified on the ultimate issue out of jackson and i'm asking is it your theory of our firmness that the expert testified also issue something that was not the list of about what she knew and when she knew you absolutely can your honor through the testimony of lawrence hey fle not just about the general conditions the testimony of commissioner apps regarding the inevitability of extreme violence there and from lawrence hafe least testimony on the stand which was not objected to that officer hampton said she knew she shouldn't have gone in there with that but that that is my what what how would that be appropriate for the expert to upon her state of mind on the ultimate issue the way that he was a what was the authority that allows that to apply the deliberate indifference you have a case the no  because in all interrupt them because they in the appellants reply brief they cite heavily or adams versus breezy decision yes but you're supplemental you didn't mention it in that case is overturning a jury verdict on very similar circumstances so even if i'm sort of you and wish that this looked like it was exactly what the jury was being presented we've got a powerful precedent that would be contrary to the position you're urging i think that panel decision and can to be jones your honor  would be the appropriate measure for what the standard is for this court on appellate but what's your opinion on adams versus breezy her is as pronounced thank you i'm sorry adam is adams versus par which yes yes how how would you distinguish that case because all the districts that follow it say it's got to be a known a very actual knowledge known extreme risk and then you walk away from it and well i believe that the expert testimony here behaved flee the testimony presented by let's be clear the state the department of corrections defended hampton by saying this is such an extremely violent environment it is so inevitable this is their trial strategy it is so inevitable that you can't blame officer hampton because these these total absolute criminals that was there closing or you know ok have done this so  set the standard and showed the excessiveness of the day just said she made a mistake and based defended by saying this is just a mistake nothing to see here and the jury having heard all of the testimony from hay flee from their expert witness up all of the testimony said she's not believable we don't believe her you can't work it parchment eight years you can't have post orders that say don't do exactly what you did things but she is not asked about that issue we wouldn't have to indirectly get there to what you know did you have a strategy to not answer it or is it the one o one don't ask a question you don't know the answer to your specific i will answer that question and say this after having read the examination of hampton she was a very combative witness there were numerous times she was impeached she didn't come across as credible i could look at that jury and see that they probably didn't believe a word she was saying there was a bench conference after an objection by mr ervin trial counsel in this case along with mr goodwin worked judge and he caught basically said look we can be here all day i think the jury is god i think they see what she's saying and what she has said before we could be here all day and with here is my point i get there but you ask a nine times about the bullet the deposition she was asked about it's just a curiosity that a pivotal piece of her awareness is not asked in the deposition not as when she's on th not only redirect to where she's confronted with once you had her i mean it's clear to me from the testimony she was a difficult witness asaram maybe that's why the jury came down but i'm just want to understand how you get there and i guess your answer to me is that you had the expert testimony so you just you didn't go there and what your argument is that the jury and the court could find it the experts apply what you do not ask is that we had we had hastily we had hampton and considered that sufficient there's a fine line you draw when you're in front of the jury between being seen as beating up a witness and letting some things and you know up in north mississippi you know the thing matters and how you come across in your treatment of a witness matters and at some point it could prove to be detrimental to beat up on a witness it could develop sympathy a problem not limited to northern mississippi you're correct your honor but i know that we hold a very highly up there and it's always a consideration in what we do have been there yes your honor certainly you have counsel back to davenport and you can correct me if i'm wrong i thought the judge in dismissing that and from the lawsuit made terminations that he had done an inspection but that it was so remote in time from this incident and further that he had no responsibility for doing daily or weekly inspections wasn't that the basis for her determination that he ought to be dismissed it was his inspection was approximately forty five days prior to the incident to address the issue of the parents the testimony from inmate house which is in the record was that the hands were not hard to get out that isn't direct his testimony was this wasn't hard to get out it didn't take much to get out of these pens and i think that the period and whether any money had broken out of before there is nothing in the record the pens were wrecked and some time after a consent decree was entered into by the department of corrections at unit thirty two it was supposed to be a palliative measure but we don't have specific information to attacks out on the pens we do know the testimony of sharon hampton was i've got to be careful out there on the yard all the time because inmates are always going to try to grab stuff from so clearly there was a a a a knowledge on her part that out on the yard with these pens or not i've got to be i've got to have sort of cat like awareness any potential danger that may be out there is going to help against somebody who's charging at you mediately a pellet gun is classified as a non lethal weapon your honor one of the end mates i think boldly and rationally testified well it doesn't hurt that much better having that actually there was a if you can be killed by a shot from a thirty seven millimeter pelican but yet it stopped off it did stop they hid behind the pens and  no i don't i think the i think the exhibit for the report that was admitted into evidence that judge jolly is referencing does indicate that taylor testified that he panicked that think there was i don't know how decided to run inside the building that's correct i admit i panicked and somehow dropped the keys to actually through the exercise pans so it wasn't a matter of speculating what motivated him has so much evidence that clearly indicates that the gun and the bullets had absolutely zero to do with the ultimate and simply for i wouldn't say that it was zero because we don't know whether or not he was of there are questions perhaps that the defendant is attempting to raise on appeal as to superseding perhaps lieutenant taylor's cowardice is the superseding call there was no nothing tendered to the jury from which they could arrive at that verdict it's me it goes to the wrist to hampton proceed with your any evidence that taylor could have shot had the gunman shot one of the rushing prisoners reloaded and shot the other in time to save himself as well as the other prisoners any evidence at all that he could have done yes that hand he had two more pellets had the gun been loaded these two guys were rushing him they were in close proximity with weapons that had thought that without these two extra pellets two prisoners could could a steady than rush tyler and he's going to drop the gun and they're going to get the keys and let the in my day and i don't there's no i don't see what made her think through reload and she the other that were rushing him in this trial none trying taylor was a party in the fault and well the ones your expert testimony that yes that guard a guard standing there could have shot one of them in reloaded and shot the other when they were both roshi neither the descendants or the plaintiffs tendered expert testimony regarding the role of lieutenant hampton lieutenant and i take i thought there was undisputed evidence about how long it took to break down the gun once it had been fired and unloaded state though it's been shot you can only shoot one of the time you shoot one guy you break it down to put in the other where can the jury draw infer from that that there would have been time to shoot you want to break it down and put another pellet initiate the that i think the jury was free to draw that inference from the evidence that was produced a trial i took the two rounds in with me i didn't think it would take me very long to record evidence s she'd already been in there five or six minutes at the time that the attack occurred i could not tell him about what evidence is there she knew the gun was unloaded not about the two pellets but the gun was unloaded direct evidence that she  gun was unloaded no direct evidence that she knew the gun know with mission from her there is none she did not hear anybody else who says i mean it wasn't taylor the one who originally checked it out and should have checked it that's a disputed issue how long she was out on the yard that day was hotly disputed she testified that she was the yard officer she was a sailor was the yard officer she testified she was only out there a small while her report to the court to her superiors in corrections was i was out there virtually all day let me come at it this way other than the evidence that the gun actually was unloaded was there any other evidence of any kind service stanch will direct anything that she knew it was unloaded i believe her statement was she directly admitted i took the two rounds with me thinking i would be right that how does that show the gun was unloaded i do it doesn't directly show but i think a jury engaging her testimony and her saying that and knowing that the gun was on could draw the inference that she was taking a risk and aware that the gun was unloaded again we're talking about reasonable inferences to be drawn from the facts i don't understand how the inference that she has two extra bullets in her pocket tells us the gun was only i'm just not getting that but if that's it that's that's all i need to know that i'm not getting that information i understand and i don't know that i can clarify it any more for the court than born free room it was not testified to a trial actually in her deposition she testified that we had gone from a three round system to a two round system and that's borne out by the fact that there were only two there were only ever two rounds i have a question about causation yes ma'am is there only one motion for judgment as a matter of law with regard to ms hampton and that motion seems to address only the deliberate indifference to the safety so if i'm asked i'm wondering if there is a rule fifty motion about causation but if there is not i'm wondering if you've waived any objection there two because your second heading of your brief says the just report properly overruled the defendant hampton's motion for judgment as a matter of law in light of ample evidence that her x no missions caused injury so can you answer yes of questions if i remember correctly there was a rule fifty motion filed in from the plaintiff case on behalf of hampton causation was one of the questions it was raised post trial but it was generated motion that i'm reading from right now that only mentions the deliberate indifference separate line on cause i believe it was addressed in the court's opinion your honor the question of causation it was raised on there that the question of qualified immunity was not was we would argue waive but i believe the causation issues according to her varying testimony because she testified several ways about this she either got the weapon wants from taylor or got the weapon twice from taylor that day and the post order was specific you must check the weapon when you receive it to make certain that it's loaded and you must give the ammunition in your possession to your fellow correctional officer whenever you receive or the weapon is relinquished taylor did not check it taylor did not check at all he was obligated to do it and that's one of the reasons that he was disciplined or whatever happened as was sharon hampton correcting those duties extended to both of them fully and equally irrespective of their status as supervisors or anything else we supposed to check if you were on the yard you were supposed to check it as soon as there was an inmate in proximity to you being transported and when the end when they're in their hands and  hampton testified i was out there all day i was the yard officer there in their pens you had a duty as long as there wasn't an inmate a chained inmate being walked past you to pop that tiers there were twenty eight pens i do not know if every pen was loaded i do know that they just don't have inmates constantly being brought in and out because they go in tiers so once you get one tear in and they're all locked up and you're sitting there for several hours you pop the bad boy open you take a look you do your job and when you don't do your job like that the post order tells us people may be killed and sharon hampton realized that people might be killed if she didn't do her job the post order doesn't set the standard but it does speak to her subjective awareness of the risk of  absent said earlier in response to the adams b pereira's case that well dressed that directly but said well can to his control and in this case cantus a very similar case and is very instructive in this case very factually different in fact in the cantu cases the scores where the allegations were that the prison officials actually orchestrated the attack it went far beyond just deliberate indifference to inmate on inmate violence in this case about what sharon hampton didn't know did you have certainly we've said that she did not what did you ask her on direct examination to tell us that she didn't know about unit thirty two its history of violence the danger of a made on him a violent did you ask you to say she didn't know back then i did not examine the same thing but the questions were not asked i don't believe i've read the record a few times there were no questions about that but it might have been  your honor that there were system only that said well these tax were inevitable these attacks were inevitable and the testimony is clear when you read his entire testimony that he was speaking about gang violence in general that had renounced their gang affiliation and had participated in a program at the prison a renunciation program that's what they testified to yes you are we suppose supposed to have some tear gas in addition to this pellet gun and she didn't ever tear gas and keep and did have the one bullet in the gun which taylor's would she be liable because she didn't ever tear gas no your honor it would have been a violation of policy or if taylor didn't have his tear gas whoever was there no your honor it would have been a violation of policy assuming the policy said you had to have your tear gas on you at all times and use it in certain circles of violations of policies and deliberate infliction of punishment under the eight men absolutely your honor and that's why we're here today i believe in of focus on the bullets were appalling or not if she had taken the blog on itself and deliberately went out and were indifferent to it deliberately took in you knowingly doesn't that change the case to leave him out there with no weapon at all that's certainly a hypothetical that it would make it would make her actions more egregious but i think you still do not reach deliberate indifference without some indications indication to her that there was a risk that inmates were going to escape those pans and attack someone and there and linus council has admitted there was simply no evidence of stated to the investigators before versus what she testified stated to the investigators and was it was put in the report that she said i had been it was not clear admittedly but she said i had been on your call since i believe early that morning or something that fact since early that morning she did not say i was the first one out there she did not say that she'd been ill it was just i had been out there since early it was undisputed that yard call was only going when she arrived to work that morning and lieutenant taylor was already on the yard with a blog on providing security and when she was told originally she was told to go be a terror officer and then those  no go to your call and help with your call you get to answer a question that you don't hear you know yes yes you're on a somewhat of wait no a period of i'm sorry i'm sorry we've all been living with this case for so long i it's hard to stop talking thank you we appreciate the briefing and argument of counsel in the case this concludes your argument