hundred for his crimes before the sacred institutionalized mr carty you need to prove a critical factor required by the statute in any substantial sexual conduct instead of proceeding in the way that prosecutors  public defenders and civil trial lawyers proceed every day across the state in across the country namely calling witnesses the crown my testimony established fastens object in the cross examination to state here elected to proffer only documents was he represented by act that's correct and when they requested counsel requests to the opportunity to call who the victim were those was the counsel was given the opportunity nine but the conviction was all the way back in ninety one well you let's bring on the this is an important point because the california supreme court in people v audio clip a significant amount of reliance on the notion that the probation report which is really the foundation here for punishment is going to be that's exactly what happened in this case there were seven counts under the statute the choices that the judge had with these three years six years or eight years the government agreed as part of the pl to give up the calling of witnesses and cross examination so that's quite right and i think it's appropriate for a criminal defendant to make that choice at the time i think there's i don't think that it's that all fair called for saying the government has the normal criminal prosecutorial burden that would have been a criminal case to to provide and call the witnesses itself it can't rely on that here's why don't think you have to go quite that far and i know that but the court may just be suggesting an analogy and you know i'm not suggesting that we have to import criminal concepts into this s well you know you can make that argument that if you have no incentive to challenge the probation report which set out all this there there there those are really two different sorts of proceedings i don't think that you can cause a presumption on a criminal defendant who's sleeping under people of the west and receiving a favorable sentence at the low even below frankly the low end of  spectrum and say that he also has to preserve and make not just preserve but actually affirmatively make challenges in to a probation report for the purpose of sentencing that would then also hold up however many years later when the government's trying to show substantial sexual conduct there two different factual findings and two different sorts of proceedings for different purposes where there is in civil proceedings the concept of well i see that my time is quickly running out but i might just make one more point on this and this sort of criminal civil distinction and that is you know we're not taking the position that crawford ought to look life and in this context but if you look at the liberty interests that are at stake i virtually indistinguishable between a criminal proceeding and this sort of civil commitment proceeding if you look at the government's interest if anything the government interests are stronger in a criminal context given the policies of importantly that there was no collateral consequence because eighth the court cannot offer a remedy or relief for an expired term that's on page ten seventy three that the defendant or the appellant has the burden of producing evidence injury or disability that can satisfy the collateral case and consequent hung consequence requirement and the court specifically looked at the fact that there may be a future civil commitment and the fact that there may be potential reputational harm were not satisfactory to provide article three collateral consequences for stiction and when you think about it that's actually consistent with the article three case law of the u s supreme court i referenced in our supplement of authority the california supreme court case last the eighth amendment but also whether or not it is good of nature or regulatory for half of the fee fails to register or who has ninety day verification he is subject to potential criminal ability i mean well we know that with probation and we know that supervised release such as parole are not sufficient consequences and think about it in those terms jurisdiction over that subsequent commitment and that if we invalidate the initial commitment and somehow all other commitments which of course are separate civil commitment finding somehow our house of cards the phone i don't know under residential burglary might not have been proved but in this particular case we don't have to deal with any of those sorts of problems because two reasons one the question is whether or not the statements are reliable and trustworthy we also have the issue of whether or not counseling to the question of whether or not crawford apply and even though crawford is not an issue that is grief before the court i suggest very quickly there's no six minute confrontation issue here therefore crawford has no application in this particular instance process and as a result there's no due process violation and the district court did not correctly found at the trial that the state court of appeal did not on the reasonably apply united states supreme court of law and therefore under a definite community so under the equitable powers of the state courts certainly card you could go back and get the two thousand and one order nullified as well because there's no longer a valid final judgment