would only be successful on the assault charges that correct your honor and i believe that's true i think that the evidence was sufficient with the statement if there is no reversal of the statement i don't think that there ends up being any statement i believe then you asserted that the district court found your client's testimony if the hearing to be credible i couldn't locate that in the record where is the district court make that i guess i did when i wrote that maybe it's because i know just meals and i was a physically present because i'm on the appeal to any but i understood that to mean that you understandably because he was under morphine and there was a lot going on and it was understandable that he would remember that today has not done anything in terms of mandatory minimum sentences i know because they deny a petition for certiorari did recently  of money that the drugs well according to the police version of events he had done in exchange of money or drugs for money and so he would be introduction of the money would be the police  testimony in the record that i think from one of the officers that your client is saying i want to talk to me don't you want to talk to me or something along those lines and then i think you've got a couple of cases those parameters  distinguish for the court was and the difference between a coercive statement that's gotten the worst of plea and whether or not he's waived his miranda rights knowingly and intelligently and i think those are two very different standards and i think that they get mixed in together because an attorney prior to his going to the hospital and i think that that wasn't even addressed by the by the trial court and i think that that is significant under these facts and circumstances as to whether his waiver was knowing involved and or voluntary we get that liberty back on going to the comment that was made in closing arguments the way i look to the jury instructions that were given and the court partly instructed the  basically we have to proceed in that first the germs follow the law but the way that i see the issues in this case regardless of how when you look at that the jury hands to decide whether your client knew that they were police officers that was the crucial all issue they say no one was prevented from putting on any evidence your client you put on a certain amount of evidence and witnesses talk about the conditions you know there was about where the door was where the spiders were the artists are just put on testimony there was in the record police mark you know what they were wearing you know an officer i think it was some distance away said that he could hear the police the stance what the orders were but the only way your client could be found guilty of the assault on the officer is the elements right with food in the instructions he had to know that they were police officers i don't think that there were issues about the discharge the duties it was really about the knowledge did he know that they were decision about whether they couldn't find him guilty and last he knew that he was appointed officer actually i disagree they couldn't eclipse him acting in self defense if they believe he was upset if there was  of there was no misstatement of the law or the judge it's a comment that you said that the prosecutor made in closing argument that was not objected to so we're reviewing it for playing they are correct and it really boils down to did they think he knew they were police officers if the jury believes that that he knew he was he knew they were a police officer he doesn't win on any you can't win out of any theory so i just don't see how you know i don't see how you could show that you would have gotten a act know it is only that if you're acting in self defense you don't get a self defense instruction if you knew that they were officers that's in fact a very specific things you don't have to know that they that's feel that if you're all over the united states that they don't have to actually know that the person i think it's not an excuse i'm going to tell the court that i think it sometimes in the heat of a closing arguments sometimes a person can say things and if you not realize the impact of what and what's being said  court's looks at the record it wasn't that there was any lengthy discussion about this burden of proof issue it was more of an introductory comment and then the government went into a detail analysis of the facts government's opening statement the jury was advised that not only was the prosecutor statements not evidence but the court was to instruct them on the law they had to follow the law and that was again reiterated during closing arguments that it was the court's role the court's duty to follow the that happened in this case that a copy of all the jury of coffee each of the jury instruction was given to each juror and they were instructed and they read along while that year at the court instructed the jury and then only a single copy went back to the jury room dealing with here is that it was certainly fair that is one that affects the fundamental right but the court then has to determine whether reversal is required and that's a reversal is required only when the error severely affected the fairness integrity to be an accurate rest recitation of the actual jury instruction the actual jury instruction would and did say to the best of my recollection your honor the government also must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt either and  the court would like i could i could submit a supplemental excerpt of the records act containing the the actual jury instruction because i did the best of my recollection i'm certain that that jury instruction which had had a fair amount of discussion pretrial  would like to you to address the question that this line of questioning fire was asking appellants counsel towards the end about you know what does the jury really have to decide here and terms that he might be found guilty in terms of finding there was you know it was dark it was they were you know there was conflicting evidence about you know whether you can see are the police you know by the police officer for wearing white and could hear the holograph but the question is could they have found him guilty of what they found him guilty as if they thought he didn't know they were police officers i don't believe so your honor i think that it was he was charged with the so i thought of federal officer and i think that was at least with respect to self defense i think that was one of the guilty of assault on a federal officer on the your honor i mean take prosecuting someone for murder just to have to be someone get i think so well in the record and i'm looking at the supplemental lecture for the record at three twenty  with respect to the self defense instruction they think the jury was instructed that the defendant knew especially jack special agent decided to act was a law enforcement officer and the government has the burden of proof have to prove beyond a reasonable regardless of the means of setting aside the affirmative defense i'm not i believe that i'm not certain you have to know that there's a federal police officer or not i don't have to look at  defendant did not have to know especially since i was a federal officer with respect to the self and self defense instruction the defendant would have had to know he was a federal officer at least that's the way the instructions read and that's what the trial the jury was charged think the the question was whether the self defense instruction provided that the government has proven proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the three elements that stuff the government is required to prove a law enforcement officer or it's been i think the or the defendant did not reasonable reasonably believe that force was necessary to defend against an immediate use of force or the defendant use more force than  the record shows your honor that that according to the defendant he said at the time that he was arrested he asked whether he had the right to have an attorney is attorney present and i and according to the defendant was the defendant was going the wrong way on one way streets was going through a red lights and stop signs he's failing to yield to the archosaurs and eventually had to be stopped he didn't stop when officers had a crash and his vehicle at the time that you honor he had suffered some injury to his face there was from the flying glass from the the windshield and a part of the bullet jacket that had come to slide become dislodged and hit him in the face and so officers immediately called for actually came off and at least that's what the officers believe is it the jacket hit the definitive chic and the expert testimony was from the defense that the bullet more than likely actually did through the back window t he did your honor what happened was according to da protocol the local agencies then took over the investigation the tenet rose from the spokane county sheriff's department went up to the hospital and waited outside the defendant's and whether anyone want to hear his side of the story and assets more than one time a second local officer then detectives d c arrived and both officers then went to the to the room where the defendant was being waiting then talk to the officers the officer said that he was coherent made eye contact his statements seem to be consistent with the events that had occurred he was responsive and one time had asked the officers come back and continue to talk to him interestingly your honor he not only said that he admitted to engaging in the drug transaction but also then said that he claimed that there was a free man all right your honor thank you very much for your  trial attorneys that's why i mentioned that judge nelson to the extent that the court doesn't find that to be him commenting on the effects of the morphine or via mr gray's didn't have any memory i would just say that he didn't make