please the court counsel my name's william shipley i represent a plane of joshua not a gala i mean a little trouble in the sense that every police use of force case that goes to trial oftentimes comes down to a request to the jury to not grant full credibility to the justification provided by the officers this case is no different yet judge wat issuing his ruling in effect stepped into the role of the jury and immediately began adopting the presentation of the defense case that merely parroted the justifications given by the officers notwithstanding the fact that the opposition pointed out to him in many instances that the officers own statements were factually inconsistent with each other and that there were evidence from third parties as well as physical evidence that conflicted with the officer statements speaking in facts it's correct isn't it in your brief the your factual statements containing no reference to the excerpts of record absolutely is that correct or incorrect no that's correct when i focused on preparing the brief i did not have any objections to the facts of the court setting forth and i think the beginning of the brief it says a manner of objections counsel or rules require that you do than i i have voted that we can test the accuracy of your argument by referring to the documents in the record that supported or not yeah are you familiar with the rule when you wrote the brief yes but i judge watson's opinion set forth both sets of facts he was focused on the text of his opinion because whatever the judge does does that relieve you a responsibility to comply with the rules of this court no absolutely not your honor and if i had it to write over again i certainly would not go down that and did you file the brief or your honor was filed two and a half years ago so in the intervening two and a half years you could have supplemented the brief with citations to the record correct yes your honor and it is not an uncommon rule of a fellow procedure both at the state and federal level that if somebody fails to provide the record support for an assertion made in the belief that is a red flag for the idea that the record will not support the argument they're making why shouldn't we have here to such a princip while in this case you are because judge watson's order acknowledges both sets of facts and then he makes a determination in appropriately as to which fact he is going to accept it's not a question of  record that are revealed in the order and that you have to go find them in order to find that he has adopted one set of facts over another set of facts he comes right out in the order and says so and as i was assembling the brief that's where my focus led there's no question that had i again had to do this over again taking a look at the criticism it would have been very simple that you file a response prove no no because when which the facts from both sides were set forth by judge watson and i thought it was facially obvious from his own language that he had done something here that was specifically not has been pointed out and you fail to correct it when you have years to do it you are taking a risk and unless a client's case but let's move on to the facts what is it that you think you are i think there are two very significance to jump right out from the very beginning and that is whether or not the officer statements they didn't realize anybody else in the truck is credible when there were seven other people in the truck and there is at by simply saying they might be lying but actually providing content of evidence but the contrary evidence was there were eight people in the truck that jury could accept that there were eight people in the truck and the officers testify didn't see anybody was not credible direction it's very narrow road there's really nowhere else to go if the truck's going to go that way it's there's a combined space it could stop when he sees police who could stop you crime doesn't deny the tug didn't stop that it made contact as you say with one officer one moving and then continued to move in the direction of another officer that none of those the nine were not tonight that why it's not been the case well because i think the object of evidence and even the testimony of the officers is that most of the rounds were fired after the truck had passed all of the people who were in the road a sousa goes around the infiniti there's nothing in front of justified by law we would characterize even again survival anybody at all i don't yeah anybody at all the driver is not a threat to anybody there's now there's other police operate this is not what you shoot you think letting a tuck that just no people walking in the moment it's four thirty in the morning and this is a very rural part of maui there there is nothing out there for miles it took the officers fifteen minutes to respond from the nearest town where they were shooting people in this case circumstances like this well in this case in what you heard there were many rounds fired toward a truck toward a truck with four people in the back of the pickup no evidence that the officers intentionally fired at the passengers you heard that to me yes or no yes you are because because of the way that the bullets went to the tailgate in here in making credibility financings that jury could well believe at four thirty in the morning in an isolated rural area no cars in the road when that vehicle truck left the area where the police were were off the lots or were and loves then started taking potshots at that truck and you could disbelieve that that the police were justified and a jury could actually come down and say you know i don't believe that because the internal inconsistency of the evidence physical evidence as well as the witness testimonies is a jury could well find that was unreasonable and given given what's going on across our you know our country and as applied in this case i would urge the court to give my comment a miss and not to go right to a jury to have a jury determine whether or not those police officers saw eight kids in a truck four in the front and four in the back a jury could disbelieve them just the way the physical evidence were four police cars great lights witnesses say those