jurors the courtroom is roughly divided between people who are there or of my client and people there who are in support of the state and so he decided that during the voyage here he was going to limit the number of people and to four people t unnecessary it is the bottom line here because  during the trial there was a period where there were a number of journalism students who were in attendance at that time and they just told them if you can't find a seat you have to leave the courtroom if you can't buy the cd you have to leave the courtroom so find a seat three alternates during their during the whole trial which means there are fifteen people in jury box and no people and there was no limitation on four people during a trial so it shows that it was completely unnecessary to restrict the  limitation to just two people for finance family was really completely arbitrary and this is a large court i mean as just for people from the public there when you could certainly comment more by calling your jurors that i'm it's just  issue and so it's noteworthy that in this case there is if there is expert testimony a defense expert and well first let me talk i should mention that it's undisputed that within this within days prior to  whether those calls caused doubt the defense expert testified that was completely consistent with those falls and there's no evidence of inflicted chalmer child is what's on the sids expert disagreed with that and said that you can see in january expressions of shock disbelief and sadness of ours here it is very apparent from the video that he did not intend to do anything then dangers dollars life here and there twelve x there are twelve here doing this nap and he said that he was on his knees but she is using this day about it was all or she was sitting on she said she was about three feet three point five inches tall standing sitting down she's an idiot foot or two that point and so i mean so it's clear that many people here do think that early her life was necessarily in danger and there was testimony by i believe it was the defense expert that this would not be something that even a doctor if they'd taken the child to the doctor might not know that this was a life and dangerous situation so it's a situation where  his decision was that basically he didn't want the potential jurors to be contaminated by any kind of facial expressions any kind of anything at all coming from members of the public need always have people sometimes crying out crying or somebody's emotion is charged with say something during the middle of a trial and i can't i can't take in are you against reality of that and i guess you can argue just the people for the victims and some people you know against the defendant i think in the case the kind of atmosphere in the case the emotional aspect of this is what was going on and how the people were i believe senate that's causing this case operates as a winner of the right the public under the circumstances and saw that was also part of part and parcel of our argument with respect to the decision and in danger is defined as enjoy or as the potential or possibility of injury condyle that cooler or might result in harm doesn't look at what the harm by looking at the circumstances that occurred after time and what are the things that really will be up to defendant knowingly didn't a down out of bed and even separate and apart from the potential of having their head because my mother was always the potential that something more could possibly happen when you do that but the point is that slamming a child know that he's in danger that's right and in willfully consciously doing the air that basically shows what his reaction is afterward i proceeded to hark back that i was afraid that if i took it to the it that question was up to the jury was leaving a child in a car that was freezing cold where you could see rough in the car for a long period of time was something that someone known dangerous shots how they're no additional questions