if you if you can see the circumstantial evidence is enough for reasonable jury to infer that your client participated in aiding and abetting at least in the assault what why doesn't that same evidence support it in abetting of the murder that took place at approximately the same time especially given our standard which which you know as to whether no rational jury could make a finding on this evidence and is if it is a fairly deferential white why couldn't the jury infer from the fact that there's there's testimony in the places flanders with the victim before hand and their cell phone records show that there was communication between flanders  harper and then we have the testimony beyond that about what happened with the assault and outlanders phone being found there why couldn't the jury look at those things that preceded even the assault is evidence of planning why is that a reasonable inference other than that that included the planning of a murder why isn't the evidence of the someone matching flavius description participating in dragging the victim to the tree and tying him up which seems like positioning for purposes of shooting evidence of participation in the murder  the joint appendix that the transcript of where deer reflects that there was there was a nother juror who was not struck by either the prosecution or defense who like miss lake had family members who were victims of violence credibility determination as to miss lake's testimony that she simply didn't hear the question so is there something particular in that in the transcript or her testimony that  whether she could have been in port four was impartial or whether the fact of having a family members who were victims of violent crime affected her participation on the jury why isn't the pollute standard met for clear error in our review of rule thirty three motion perhaps by the government but don't we have a combination of circumstances here that should give us some concern because that question which is the sign of qua non of my jury impartiality was never asked of this juror so she never stated one way or the or the other whether it did affect her impartiality and then in the post trial hearing and she initially was not forthcoming about how many family members in fact had been victims of violent crime mean arguably made inconsistent statements along those lines i think her response was no it's just shouldn't that give us concern that she was not initially forthcoming even in the post trial hearing as to know which family members were victims of crime what you pointed to her testimony but what you make of the fairly unusual process that was used here and the supreme court suggested in ram or that having a post trial hearing would be a way to try to establish  that there was not a bias were or partiality on the part of a jerk but here there was an ex parte hearing that was held where the prosecutor alone had the opportunity to do an interview before it was made available from that fact that he knew all along that harper had a gun running on the rule thirty three motion and while it certainly seemed the preferable practice to hold a hearing involving all interested parties which is what the supreme court had suggested and not an ex parte hearing or interview in these circumstances is there anything in in that interview work or hearing that you point to to suggest that the prosecutor in any way swayed the testimony of the i'm sure we're pressured that you're in anyway