thank you for that that takes care of one part of the puzzle here but the only you know and in this particular case if we just assume argue wendel that mr wyler sixth amendment rights were violated when the jury saw the gun without the approval of the parties why isn't that they are subject to the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard under chapman the clearly this had been the guns have been presented  don't think we even get to that question but i'll answer that question what you're saying is is that we've taken away the discretion of the judge by giving it to a siesta just because we have two guns that have just saying are you wendell let's just say there's no question your client sixth amendment rights were violated there but having said that under chapman if there is a showing beyond reasonable doubt that there was no harm that followed from it and it doesn't you know it doesn't change the outcome so my question to you is given the nature of this case the strong evidence that was involved you really have a jury that wants to see these guns and you've got a very big person and a very small person and they want to have a gun they want to get some sense of that's a perfectly reasonable thing for a juror to want to do isn't it it is ok so what's the harm well the prejudiced all i know is that once they went back that's when we had a jury verdict right ok so i don't know how much weight that had because i wasn't in the room but i can tell you that that that must apply that had a prejudicial effect in that with a large tree  together that might have some prejudicial effect well you've got because the notion of the government was was that this young woman could not have carried this large gone this three fifty seven magnum gun there's no way she could have  security officers they decided that i was correct they released my client now if you if going by what you're saying is that that's the problem because you would have that way anyway there's a problem there the problem is we're giving that decision to a  this is what we want to hear on the tapes here we've got to see esto saying here are the guns and by the way these are the guns i want you to see because they asked for one gun not two both guns went back so they've seen as strong was the decision maker on which guns  you had and if you have been present when that request came in from the jury and the judge then they're saying ok and i'm considering this it's seems to me that there's even less harm if they if they had only if the judge only sent back one established your point that there was a violation but you don't win the case in order to win the case you have to get over the issue too and stop saying it's a violation i appreciate that and the only prejudicial effect that that i would see and or note here is and i understand we have a disagreement is that we have two guns in there that were announced for the way it was very important to the defense as well as the government to prove up their case but don't you think the jury would have i believe that's when the both of them together but i would just respond by saying that immediately after they got the guns verdict came back so how much weight was given to the guns apparently enough that a verdict was returned rather quickly morning daniel she's somebody half the united states i do not intend to argue any points about the matter the defense counsel is just arguing like you have any questions for me on that you know i mean i didn't have any consistently held that a court and i'm pleased that that has never occurred in this case now that it has consistently held anything but this court has then held that the combination of the charging document and the judgment and conviction are sufficient to establish that the defendant assented to the facts that would establish a qualifying