do in connection with a motion for a new trial if it turns out that this did occur and that's the misconduct of the things that i would be interested in with a juror who looked up this word what dictionary was what it was that the dictionary the petitioners entitled to twelve independent impartial jurors who never really had a hearing in the district court about what has been established as misconduct there's no dispute that there was misconduct the parties stipulated to what my fortunately the court only had statements from eight of the jurors hearing the require that the definition of intent was different than what the jury instructions for and the problem is that most of these declarations that were drafted by the district attorney's investigator were fairly vague and so i suppose the direct answer is there are four people that we haven't heard from one and two that declarations that we do have are fairly vague no one for example in all the declarations admitted that he or she was the one that went to the dictionary and looked up what the definition of intent was so one you have to really question the credibility of the declarations or thermos of the declaration that we've received the second is it's clear in this case that the jurors were having trouble with this very issue which as the issue of intent for example they tried to remove one juror and during the course of the deliberation because the juror wanted to talk among other things about the intoxication of the defendant which which goes to intent the jury was hung up for two days apparently on count one which was the murder charge and sorrow i think there is abundant evidence that there was issues isn't any dictionary definition specifically outline that i recall in the state court trial transcripts i know that judge words talks in general terms about what he thought the intent was in the dictionary definition of inten the the desc the dictionary definition well according to one of the jurors it was i mean i don't know obviously when anybody looked at what dictionary they were using how thorough they got into it so it's certainly speculati my behalf this point to wonder i suppose what what the jurors could have been looking up or reading i don't know whether they went to a legal dictionary webster's dictionary we don't know the timeframe of when they looked at the dictionary  conduct and so we have found that there was misconduct the question is its impact and its effect or its influence on the jury and i don't see in these declarations how anyone could form a conclusion without hearing from all twelve jurors now for example all twelve jurors have given a declaration or an affidavit and that would be something different but we didn't have that here the state court provision cold provides for hearings under these circumstances he could have been done time and it's a tough case for you in my view well i i don't i don't disagree with that and i don't disagree with that because i think the record is not filled in i mean i think there are significant questions there that were raised and i don't think it's unreasonable to at least attempt to to answer them and so at least we have a complete record to it to fully evaluate and so that's why i think there's a necessary requirement that if you remain at it for some do anything more than he did in this case based upon affidavit that were in front of the court it was able to make all the factual findings that it needed defense came forward with affidavits and didn't have the jurors  and that there was no evidence showing that the jury was influenced by the definition she should incite in the trial court and cite anything here which would have changed the court's opinion any further