more detail so it's difficult to understand exactly what he thought beyond that when the sense that he stated that the argument the various clears your discretion when after hearing all the evidence and sitting through this week and half month trial declining to permit this award this verdict should stand because the evidence supported it there's no proof that the verdict was influenced by any sort of passion prejudice your words for good reason we are in no better position to judge the appropriate amount of a verdict than are the twelve people who see and hear the arguments and the admin its babies are combined wisdom and experience to reach fair and reasonable judgments we are n that of course i'm not so subject i'm suggesting that it was cross examination in which he was asked a question you have previously testified that your damages were not severe right now that you're not so here to say anything about said what he said was you know after so many years and wrong person and you feel like you know you're doing the right thing and you know that the citizens of chicago especially some communities major you need me and you no longer have a position where you can help my entire life i've been helping the citizens of chicago in whatever way i could and there i was making the police department better and i was being fired by someone who was making the place to come to rest i just wanted to tell you that that is actually rather sad he testified there was other evidence besides these couple of pages where he testifies directly it was either other evidence during the trial upon which the jury could have relied it never to me gets a term emission that trillion dollars was necessary to make this particular man under these particular unique jury was feature rely upon besides the cited persons of his actual testimony where he as you can see for the record he failed to down any addition to that those other accidents that they were able to rely on like for example the yes and i believe that there was evidence in the record upon which the story could reasonably relied to come to a decision that two million dollars was necessary in this case for this particular person who had devoted his entire make a person such as this clear than it would for somebody who worked for three years and then was fired and then was able to go on and do something out at a much younger eight again what you're what you're talking about is that there was that's for determining that that the plaintiff could suffer emotional stress due to the wrongful conduct of the city but the question becomes what is the measure of those damages and there isn't a lot of evidence here and so when you went to the jury that gave him two million to four million dollars where are they going to put that they did at the lowest sound of that recommendation the outline of their verdict form there wasn't really was i mean this is an amount that is approximately three times the special damages it's less than three times the special they that's why we need us to trust juries to make these determinations because trying to nd guess that and trying to you know precisely measure emotional the images is this something that is very difficult to do and that's why we trust juries to do it and it's very very case there was other evidence to make judge just alert sat in the besides just these two pages where these few pages of direct testimony there was other testimony during the trial other evidence during the trial that the  cited by the city it is the law in those jurisdictions but it is not the rock here and so to take a record that has no basis in it to conclude that the verdict was to live it has no evidentiary errors in joining the case or other errors were alleged that's not what happened here a bit and it's just pure conjecture to say that this verdict was a result of passion or prejudice when there's just nothing