web search engines wireless handheld devices and internet connected multimedia smartphones by yours in any given case as natural to cause a mistrial that is critical to the administration of justice that these interactive website and there are comments to the live starting one this woman was like that is your europe people responding for we don't have those comments and we don't know what was said either on or off line we are stand testimony sympathy won't win their case but it sure doesn't help thought about damnation the plaintiff's attorney i am a shelf in my humble opinion ripped his testimony or the guy pace one more thing i told mr peavey things about face but i'm very careful not to give away any details that might let him know what the basis she goes on to speculate about settlement  taking a chance the jury will order less money than what my flares are holding out for some we shall see in that same post she says but i can tell you some stuff at one point on friday in the privacy  after she said all i looked at her in disbelief you can't talk that way i said to have to wait till all the evidence is in and we've heard all of the witnesses did she presumption you have no presumption running in your favor in this case but what i would suggest in this circumstance with a trial court should be done is conducted an investigation into this because without that investigation we know scheduling changes improperly designed and maintain the handicapped access ramp of the platform which allows for any implying individuals see it out of left form without receiving warning what was  jersey and there's no evidence that influence the jurors or the deliberations unless the court has questions about the block i'd like to work to the passenger issue from what i've heard if i could just clarify one point first there's no there was no allegation about a sign being on the platform the allegations of the complaint i'm sorry the allegations are in the issues destruction to not reverse sides the question here was basically whether or not scott was on the platform that morning because if he is on the platform according to all the testimony including the testimony of the i c c expert he's not within the scope of i c c control everybody agreed that the platform itself is not something that the i c c controls and that immediately took away all the questions of what external gates they had up to protect people coming on to the platform and if the court because the testimony was that this was a platform that they consider anything inside the gates platform and in this case the case had descended he did apparently come into the station and while he was standing there because there's no evidence that he walked around the prosecutor he walked into the station and walked onto the platform on that right next to the tracks and the gates came down behind him and once he does that everybody the evidence is all that he's on the platform and once he's on the platform the railroad controlled his movements if with we need actual control we have somebody making an announcement telling the people to cross the tracks and the corey may recall at least two witnesses testified it violates i c c and f c c rules to tell people to make a movement when there are trains going through the station all i have to do is say that and i think everybody's into the station and that's not what happened there was some kind of music to miscommunication so the bottom line is we have this individual who having done this for years having acted as carefully as he could wait for this freight train to go to go past which situation and they've agreed i heard him i heard counsel admitted this morning and i'm not surprised because it's in pitch ten of the reply brief they've always admitted that scott was here with the intent to catch this train the only question is is the spot where he was standing something that can be considered part of the platform yet he yet arrived at that spot all the evidence was that it was at least surely said that question to the jury and  the case where the gentleman was waiting for a train on the platform and simply leaned over and fell and was hit by the train i would you believe if you read the case closely that was not even a train going to stop for him  there was disputed testimony if you read the facts carefully sounded to the test when in that case that train was when it was seen when he bent over was coming as fast as it could go which means truly was not going to stop there and engineers admitted that he had gone through stops previously  and yet they found that that person was a passenger because he was on that platform with the attempts to catch a train in this case scott with the platform with the intent to catch this train and this really ceding control of being that they really expect the railroad to take care of what's going on in the platform the i c c is not going to tell them what to do with the people inside and the people inside includes guy it comes inside the gate he gets some directions there's nothing and they don't happen to tell him what to do and there's nothing there to control what he did and we explained what they could have said and we explained what they could have done which the c t a c t a already does to make sure his movements w communication between that juror and other people were telling her what to do it without that the judge would the judge i believe used the term fishing expedition you could you could make this comment in any case where you could talk torture and the german say well i told other people about the case and i would go to court and such as i want you to bring that jury and tell me if those people she talked to said anything back to her we could stall every jury verdict because most people on a jury of the say i'm serving this is what the case is about they'd have to investigate everything i suggest of the court that there should be more than that and if there was more than that they could have found it and they did not the burden of my understanding is the burden is very high on a party seeking to challenge the jury's verdict if the cory calls in but he did start to cross those tracks in the face of one coming train with the warning devices working belt working lights flashing gates down and when he was struck he was in between two tracks you can order train from in between two two tracks i distinguish this from skelton because in skelton's that was a flag stop and mr scull was allowed to go on station without it and the platform without a ticket and i believe some of the testimony is that he was trying to flag but at that point the trial court that night i request it already determined as a matter of law the mr estey was a passenger of the highest you hear there is nothing more for us to do if they have point we just couldn't