there's no dispute that this infringed on mrs simpson's first amendment free speech rights and since the case involves a deal policy that abridges a fundamental constitutional right is governed by the case turner versus safley the district court recognized that  erred in two ways first it abused its discretion by excluding as irrelevant the very evidence that turner tells us is relevant that is what other correctional facilities do on a particular issue in this case inmate mail and it also ignored the evidence as it came in in trial in favor of what it saw at the logical connection between the restriction and its stated goals which disregards a clear directive from the supreme court in the case beard versus banks which requires jails to show more than a formalistic logical connection one on appeal which is concerning the district court's improper exclusion of other correctional facilities policies on inmate i mean this is a prejudicial exclusion of evidence because the court not only ultimately ruled against mr simpson but that ruled against ron each of yeah sorry about that mrs simpson wasn't able to lift that testimony on how the department of corrections policy that your prison policy or any of the other county jail policies could have been adapted and keep gerardo with minimal cost separate the inspection process and the reading process so there isn't so much administrative burden on the prison staff and if inmates abuse that privilege they and they restrict those prisoners from receiving letters from everybody in the world to just immediate family member so we talked about the relevance of that evidence and the fact that the turner court itself relied precisely on the same b o p policy when we you mean how the how the policies would have helped if the i think it does your honor we we talked about how the did the jail didn't even consider any alternative before banning letters the exclusion of all that really is not particularly prejudicial because all of those processes and procedures were not materially different from the previous cape gerardo  suggested alternatives your honor i think about that i think that was the court's rationale but i don't think that is correct that they kept out of county jail it didn't offer any evidence about for example separating the reading processing section pro or having specialized staff that looked at just mail processing issues or how it delivered the mail or if anything like that that would have made those policies irrelevant to the court's determination and  turning to the second issue on appeal the district court did identify turner correctly as the governing standard but then it applied it incorrectly now turner this case involves their sjambok a non prison a communication among different parties if you look at your vs banks for example the two thousand and six case that involved a magazine a newspaper publishers who wanted to send mail in book out but of course i was not you were saying that it matters legally i was saying what what what case would say that i would guess not i'm going to there's a there there are lots of first amendment cases that involve nine incarcerated persons and the government isn't permitted to infringe on the rights of non incarcerated persons to the extent that it can in a in a turner case so if turner applies here the government can do more to infringe that right then it could if it involved sol incarcerated person but that would be the the the most restrictions that the government could put on free speech rights there's no there's no case that says a non incarcerated person has less free speech than an incarcerated person your honor i don't think the evidence that trial showed that the jail had any legitimate concern to which it was responding in beginning all personal letters to inmates and the district court didn't analyze whether the jail  that there were no increased cost to the jail before this policy was implemented the jail had an opportunity to show that there had been increased costs but it didn't the evidence at trial showed that the jail didn't save any time  by going to a just and the system it didn't it didn't change the number of staff that it didn't have reduced volume in the number of pieces of mail that came in and it didn't have any different than the amount of contraband that went into the  we had five years of contraband reports that showed that there had never been a prisoner who had been found with contraband in the jail when the letter policy was in effect so what was the evidence that court c reinstated a prostate challenge to a post card only policy in jackson county and it cited cases where this court looked at the evidence that a particular jail or prison has to support its idea that some more restriction would be beneficial including murphy versus missouri department of corrections both of those cases indicate that a a court has a duty to look at the actual record and ensure that a jail isn't burdening constitutional rights in a way that doesn't have any benefit for the evidence or issues that i think go were briefly touched on by appellant can be easily dealt with the court excluded the evidence basically on relevance there was no offer all to muttley as to how the other policies would be relevant to handling the cape dreidel county policy in fact they were just offered generally and we have various prisons and county jails in southeast missouri that in fact a couple of them have seven or eight inmates on a daily basis iron county oregon county rip being offered and there was no showing how these policies would have differed in any way than the cape girardeau county policy ineffectual ating something as an alternative to what the postcard policy that was being adopted by county one of the issues and turner is whether a change can be made for a de minim cost and one of the arguments just now as well you can add more staff to process these and look through them and you can have more people doing jobs for corrections officers doing them to draw the kind of jail  the evidence was they have for corrections officers on duty for at any shift for two hundred plus inmates and the evidence was also very clear as to all of the duties that these various four corrections officers have to do besides checking out the end mates processing in people processing out people dealing with the public court duties food medical and cetera and going through the mail is a laborious of the time this policy was implemented has been implemented the same or less same or less yes or but the time spent having to go through a postcard is in fact less and does not spent there was not a defined time testified to by anyone there was testimony by the two officers that the time has been less and we've had to flee been able to free up has been reduced and the contraband you talk about certain types yes or the contraband that we were talking about it was on was paper clips pounds rubber but in addition to other types of things it could be in addition to jail and that's a legitimate issue that any jail faces one of the other issues that the judge had before her was appellant's husband mr simpson who was a corrections officer three menard state penitentiary and just really knowing he criticized our own policy before it was changed because the jailers did not remove this stamps from the on the lobes and he said well you can put drugs underneath the stamps and they should be removed and in menard they take the stamps off the letters that's another process that you would have to go through  he postcards worse required to be spelled spam or they did take off postcard stamps presumably but those were issues that the judge heard she heard that the fact that the menards state penitentiary allowed letters to come in so i don't think the evidence issue is one that is prejudicial in this case by excluding the evidence from the trial beyond that judge jackson heard the evidence she heard the four factors she applied the four factors to the evidence that both the county put under and put him up and she made a determination based on that evidence the postcard policy passed muster on the first amendment rights of miss simpson she was still able to communicate and other alternative  her decision should be upheld as it did meet constitutional muster as to the supreme court decisions and the project cases following the turn of a chef or you would ask you to counsel if  point when one trace simpson is released the month before is very significant policy change regarding e mails and photos how was that factored into the injunction analysis the judge did not was not an issue one way or the other and what what impact is the layer change have on the damage clause i mean it shows this is a moving target as wallace well policies invariably damage claim was for postcards cost of buying postcards as opposed to standing on blocks and and then of course misspent and one of the policy changed but you know that mr simpson was out of jail although he did go back into jail at a later date but only on weekends and she didn't have any of the issues when he went back on in on weekend that she had when he was there for a six month period inmate having cassette tapes with explicit lyrics that didn't involve the kind of family communication that we have here which the supreme court in twenty fourteen in the case mcallen vs coakley recognized that one on one communication particular issue of a particular publication it wasn't that kind of blanket ban on all letters or even all magazines something like that it was one particular issue of the magazine that the warden had found advocated for violence so in both of those cases somebody had made a determination that the communications that issue were disruptive or at least could potentially be disruptive here there are you know a knock us letters going back and forth between mrs clinton and her son on family matters on the son's ability to rehabilitate thank you thank you thank you thank you very much counsel cases