the rule twenty four c of the federal rules of criminal procedure that upon the jury deliberations in this case and ultimately about what really needs to be answered here is did mr bradley receive a fair deliberation of his guilt or innocence and we would submit that he did not under both formulations of the rule what's interesting about this case is that the old rule twenty four that alternates had to be discharged after deliberations began the rule never said or never prescribe bringing any of those alternates back should the regular jury members have to be just charged that was kind of a common law on belgium and everybody believe that that flowed from that rule there is a long line of case law going back to the fifty's and the rule change maybe it hats but the point i'm trying to make here is that their worst wrong policy reasons for not bringing back an alternate when they change the language of twenty four seat they try to address some of those policy reasons for staying ok if you  improper to read a jury an allen charge before it even begins deliberations in fact if you look at the government's brief case twenty two of the answer is very they talk about basic allen charge law and all the case the say things like a district court is not required takes up the judgment of a jury come out finally after six hours the jury's deadlock right the judge brings everybody back in including the alternate it's and says ok here's what happened today you are you all had all these questions about reasonable doubt you were deadlocked i'm going t instruction that said one on one hand he can and you on the other hand but here's all the things that happened yesterday and you need to deal with that that's the whole worst of the problem here and this is what made the allens for its worse a and jury because he wants to get out of the pressure he wants to get out but you know being under the pressure of all the jurors trying to get him to change her mind but i'm not saying that that's necessarily happened i'm saying is this record race is a strong inference and very well could the alternate juror and whether or not that was playing an error on the part of the trial judge in this case as the court made clear that the court understands that this case falls after the nine hundred ninety nine amendment to rule twenty four  standard instruction as to how jurors are to deliberate in this case it was after trial counsel for the defendant heard that the judge is not going to read that portion of it that she had no objection at that point so  government's contention that the defendant cannot show any prejudice but it's certainly our position that we need to get to that point because under the new rule twenty four c the court was allowed within his assume that it was challenged arose does that doesn't counsel of a very good point that you don't give the allen charge at the beginning of deliberations in effect this is a whole new deliberations  charged and therefore it was ok this point but i would say if it were me a part of in the trial attorney i there's no way i would let that person go out of the screen and jumped up and down to keep that person on the jury but there's nothing i can do about that now but the one other point i'd like to gee what the judge told the jurors including the alternates the way that the alternate was such that you did in the way that the judge read an allen charge gives this whole thing a very very course of a fact under these unique facts and circumstance