secret the purpose of this rule is to allow them to read to analyze the evidence and assess the defendant's guilt free from any influence or any chilling effect that may occur from the president of the words required to be spoken or does the fact that they come into the jury room and they don't talk to one another no one talks to them they're played this evidence and then go back to the jury room it twice to trial right yes and then so this was the third time when they asked my question is to be asked to hear it because you're using the words examine your shot so which is it it is did they asked leading up to the request and after the request the jury announced before the requests that it reach a verdict and d the other charge the home invasion charge and any requested the nine one one call once it received and it was in the presence of the parties that were there was no conversation me but an hour and a half after that it announced again that he was deadlocked on the relevant trust to which the nine one one was pertaining so how did you think given that nine one one call maybe that final request discuss among each other as to what they were seeing look at so you could see in this photograph whatever or you maybe you can see whatever we're talking about playing a tape it what occurred what was said that would prevent them from once they return to the jury room after hearing it from discussing the ruby instructed that you get this final listen don't talk about it any more nothing was effect what i mean is the freedom of the jury to do that sort of analysis possibly point the ability to control the manner in which it examine well so far that if you could just help clarify because i'm confused as to tape versus of the actual playing of the videotape in the court room with others outside of the juror jury present i think your term was violating the to have the jury rigged view the videotape back in the jury room what i'm saying your honor is that my client's sixth amendment rights was fired because the cardinal rule that comes with that right during deliberations of work to cease if that moment and then when they left the court room that they could continue or resume of deliberations overheard let's just take an example where oftentimes this is what the jury and told them you requested to hear this nine one one recording we're going to play it for you but at this time your deliberations are suspended we will play the recording for you i don't want you to comment on top to each other in the courtroom and then once you're done you'll return to the jury room and you can continue your deliberations even if that happens it's your position that the deliberations would not have why is there to be done one stay in the courtroom simply listening in that case the chilling effect is even greater because you do is being told you cannot really break you cannot make a discussion you cannot rise claim replay and step back moment we we submit to this court back in effectiveness occur because in this case counsel had to alternative by which she could have supported her suggestion which i want to backtrack a little bit and explain back here coun an alternative to the court which will resolve this issue in the best manner possible counsel suggested to have the relevant audio burn onto a different cd in order to prevent the jury from listening to  counsel could have raise a constitutional issue counsel could out argue that under the under united states versus all i know and under the sixth amendment that the defendant is entitled to have the jury deliberates in the privacy and the secrecy of the constitution cooperated by the testimony the officer who responded and saw the bruises on her face immunity after her nine one one call the photographs of the injuries that are in her marker show the beginning of a black eye just like she stated in her nine one one call and the recording of an i one one call which was in evidence in which she stated that defendant heated up again and gave her a black in addition she susteren cooling it sat on the nine one one call and the was admissible to show defense propensity to commit the crime of domestic battery so i don't think that it can be in miss case i believe that the evidence over a lot overwhelmingly showed the defendant was guilty of domestic battery as for the nine one one call in playing in the for the jury in the courtroom defense counsel act we asked affirmatively acquiesce to this procedure when she agreed with the prosecutor that bringing was going to force the prosecutor to do that i don't think that the prosecutor said he didn't want to i said he said he didn't want to tamper with evidence which i took to mean that perhaps he was technically challenged suggested about bringing the jury into the courtroom was quite probably probably the safest so we would argue that playing there would not apply in this case and also there is no error occurred because this issue of whether or not courts practice in this case by late that the defendant sits amendment rights can you tell us what was violated the terms of the sacrosanct or listen to a nine one one call and if there's no prejudice in the record there is no air yes it was video to review the video in the courtroom but the court wrote even if the jury is not discuss the case while in the presence of the bailiff or the employee of the state's attorney's office we simply have no way of determining what effect their presence had on the jury as defendant notes the employee of the space tourney's office where the bailiff could have frowned at a piece of evidence or scoffed at defendant's testimony oh over night of the judge nor defendant or defense counsel present oversee the interaction and to observe any impropriety now contrary to that case the circumstances here would have the judge the defense attorney the front and the state's attorney all present in the but don't we still have the same possible problems that are outlined in the case regarding whether or not the church or if it's found so or someone did something to suggest their opinion call here in the court that was a very simple admonition nothing was said by any party to the jury the jury had no questions and said nothing the record shows no no no prejudice no intent to enforce them there's nothing objective in the record that indicates that they were affected by the procedure in this case standpoint would be this should be viewed under an abuse of discretion standard what a trial court does what a trial for judge does in his or her court room in terms of interaction with the jerk but it seems from the defendant it's a matter of court discretion and put reversal is not warranted if no harm results so i think it's a matter of the courts question how they decide how the nine one one call is going to be played to the jury and there would be no reversible error prone prejudice in the record and that's fine but you know the court house decide what it's going to say everybody has to be quiet i think this case it's obvious that nothing influence the jury so i think it's fine see if that is error and then find prejudice in order to reverse we submit again not to be repetitive that our accrued fear because there was a violation of miss a new a sixth amendment right in but here from a practical standpoint in this case what can you point to as a possible prejudice to that and in terms of the jury listening to the  instances this in charge to make sure that everyone conducts himself or herself appropriately body language grimaces or any of that other stuff you know you're  looking at a bench of former trial judges here and this is not tricky to keep an eye on make sure nothing untoward happens so what in the absence of the court having so come at it what reason and in the absence of the trial judge commenting upon it or defense attorney or anyone else calling to the judge's attention to her just just the services question why should we assume anything