the result was a humongous twelve point five billion dollars verdict that was grossly excessive in light of the uncontested evidence regarding the contributions that michael would have been able to make to the family times what if you'd read the instructions are going to be given to the jury and then made comments after reading those without repeating those words that is not proper we would not have had any objection to the court to counsel for the death and that the conduct was willful and wanton but there are local and want encompasses a range of conduct ranging from either indifference all the way up to actual or deliberate intent to harm there was no finding that officer evidence of both there was considerable evidence about the negative contributions that michael would have been able to make his family in addition to the positive which we acknowledge there was evidence of cause they are not discounting that what we shot michael that has conceded that except the liability for that as well from one conduct but did not need to vent to find out what will happen what kind of mess because there was no issue it for them to decide that required an understanding of that utter indifference conscious disregard actual intent to harm let the jury just think that was relevant so with the liberation council did everything in his power to encourage that by stressing again and again that his conduct was an act represented an actual or deliberate intent to harm michael and that the jury sent a message with its verdict to the community that it was not going to accept this time let me ask you why didn't those the circuit court judge  objections and we're asking the court to take a look at the cumulative effect of six seven comments that leave we highlight in our brief and simply sustaining that was not sufficient to cure the prejudice townsell have conceded that no evidence was admitted concerning the conduct incident the trial was limited to damages and therefore it could only be any abuse of discretion she struck the jury on an issue about which there w would be a million dollars the first test for manager is whether there was the verdict represents fair and reasonable compensation for the last we not because it doesn't account for the negative evidence and even then that negative evidence is really in contest michael had significant problems that would have made it difficult to make positive contributions to his family's relationship financially he was a high school dropout he was in prison for some time he had intellectual limitations that aren't uncontested he was unable to manage money and was completely financially dependent on his family characteristics it was not likely that he would have been able to make positive financial contributions in fact it's uncontested he would have continued to be financial burdens his family probably for the rest of his life  in addition the the there was evidence concerning the love between his his family between his mother and self but that all there was also evidence concerning is a tendency to stay up late and councils from mars and we submit that your mouth was excessive and therefore should shot himself consciously in light of what councils able to slip in in a trial that was limited to damages and if there are no further questions i would ask what were they told that before an off before liability can be imposed there must be a finding of willful and wanton conduct and for that reason and that reason alone you're being instructed yes to what willful and wanton conduct means because it gives context to the cause of action but that's all it does it doesn't elevate damages or doesn't elevate liability it doesn't elevate culpability it simply explains how this case got to you the jury i agree there would have been a possibility that the city could have all of that kind of destruction but there were the one that was destruction obviously is their bir honor i want to make that clear the point is that without twenty three point zero one to explain that there was fall that's what so much well from one that somebody who's at fault the damages could be affected because if the jury isn't given some context they could just put in this situation that would be were readily think somebody died at the hands of the police officer but they're more likely to think something that i as the person who was shot caused this to happen and that's going to affect them because that's our point i think i would think that would be the kind of points that the city was making and i want to know whether you agree with it that when you're discussing willful and wanton conduct the range of con that can fall under that category is very broad and unless you give context to the rate to the actual fall conduct in this particular case there's a chance that the jury can decide that it's at the apply because the judge here to not read the jury to disregard the question and answer and my simple response is have to ask the judge to do that you're not carrying your water for you which is the problem with most of what's here gonna get it the most in lemonade the we don't pick our terms is not a tea party we're picking terms that help us i'm i'm not going to suggest i was but nonetheless was a state everyone along the way was sustained the one they didn't object to is the one that they complained of in the reply brief that's apparently their main one and it does not we've pointed out for eighteen million dollars where the status of the deceased individual is just about the same i'm not i'm not supposed to compare verdict but they don't get and that's not a comparison a verdict that's a settlement it did it without a trial type suspect the city doesn't pay more below it's not an accessory or supplemental opinion think i might have put that even in the brief i read it very closely because this topic has come up a mic logic as an appellate cases want to fracture the opinion and even if it's right even if it's right if you're honest recall she's supposed to look at that for we didn't get to see how it's obviously a large amount of money and if we had a small amount of money we'd be unhappy but if you don't want to have those kinds of much money and you try a case but you need to make objections you mean that you need not make arguments  one how do we deal with that we don't take issue with twenty three point zero one we agree that the jury should be told what happened they could even be told that it was cool and want what they should not be told when there is no evidence of it and no issue about it is that there will form one context means an actual or deliberate intent to harm and then to have counsel suggest that in fact that was what officer means had in his mind when he shot at michael so that's what we blaming the mother was there an argument to that effect before the jury no your honor to the contrary leave tried to make quite clear and we had in our grief make that step to make it clear that we are not saying that there is no love between the mother and the son there isn't it willful sides of it but the verdict cannot be accessed that even when it especially when it rests solely on that movement the jury in this case consider the emotional of evidence but fail to consider the negative evidence we didn't talk about michael's fault in order to blame the mother we talked about his fault because they would have impacted his ability to make contributions to the relationship in to see them would have provided that's not just developed the close relationship they had that's about whether there would have been able the ability to make a financial contribution that's about whether there is absence of imprisonment or because of drug otherwise the jury would have thought that michael has it all and somehow this would have given context well we submit that react is not the case the jury was told by the judge that this was a trial limited to damage it in fact