i believe that the it's structures that we had at the time that we were trying the case were not on point the cases that we had been arguing and thinking about the time of the trial  have required i asked for the six point five instruction to be given we had several things that we discussed what we should do about a long time ago things there was that's true that's what the opinion says but i thought it was more so why isn't that just like ours i mean and what makes your specific intent is that the attempt right and all attempted crimes are going to be specific intent crimes but  that's sort of over simplifies the issue here intent to get over the fence to get away from these people is if he what he's really saying is he has an excuse for why he did what he did it's not that he didn't have the intent to do what he did you are basically saying his intent was to run for his life to run away from think you get the instruction you know how are you for he saying i intended to enter the united states intended to jump off the fence and to get away from these people and that's a different you know situation if he would have said anymore without belaboring the point ok heading back to the same answer which which jury instruction do you believe was incorrectly given the big point sinks don't understand and you'll have to correct me if i'm wrong on this but i don't understand where you preserved your objection defense excerpt record thirty if you agreed with the judge to a six point five does not apply why wouldn't you be bound by that statement that is why is this like crane or cane that you and the prosecution of joined in a you know theory instruction and therefore you can't raise it on appeal because later on i did ask the court to at the language it's ok fine i thought you were on a different agreed that excerpt thirty six point five should not be given but then you changed your mind and made in a different objection way why  wouldn't the district court accept your first agreement rather than the second i don't understand where you left the district court on this and some point later on you said i really didn't mean that or what strikes me that you're asking for something different that is minor stand your argument you want to say the defendant has to prove by a preponderance the evidence of duress but then the burden shifts the government to prove the negative that it doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt but that isn't what this last paragraph of six point five says let me ask you did you said met a jury instruction with the language you requested no you are i did not  left but that's why we have nights i guess but at any rate would you turn to six point five and tell me where in the last paragraph the language indicates that there's a shift of burden of proof  find my understanding as the final jury instruction conference you didn't attack to carry me and michelle burden of persuasion that you asked at the instruction be supplemented to explain that the defense proved that if the defense prove grassfire preponderance of the evidence then the burden shifted to the government to disprove your ass beyond a reasonable doubt that's fine your time is up thank you very much unfortunately he's had some caretaker issues and that's required me to be here more seasoned allowed me to be here you're honest with regard to the substantive factual issue put in the waiver side for a moment sex complete the crime and in that regard our position is that her nineteen attempt to commit a general intent crime is simply the specific intent to commit the general again crime doesn't have a another level of specific intent on top of them that's treat this one any differently than we do the insanity defense i'm not sure i understand your question being family because i maintain the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're saying the government there this time the defendant says it was under duress why wouldn't the same rules apply you know that because arrest comes from outside forces as well as opposed to an internal mental is subject to scientific review whereas the grass involves factual issues from outside forces outside individuals outside numerous individuals at times that is where it is almost impossible to the government to disprove when the that insanity defenses are raised in advance of trial and there's a whole procedure that cows on my understanding to ras is it's not you don't have to plead it as a separate defense it's just it's something a concept in journey you know after all the facts are before the court and what the parties decide that they want to get you know how they want to argue the case and they say well look there's an innocent giraffes here and so there would be nothing all we have is it depends on when we have substantial corroboration that the government could follow that song and how are they going to do it right in the middle of trial though yes for recess and then decide you know then you have to go down to mexico and find out of the place or really after and then are really threatened you know and want to calum and all of that i mean if i were the trial judge i'd say well you know now we're not going to keep these you know recess for a month and then come back when you can do side and the next inside asking for him to be given that i think at that point just the fact that i mean we wouldn't have even tonsils defense here are if that one line in the police report would not have been included in the report