that's the clerk to call the next a harmless error analysis it's subject to harmless error analysis under planner there may be a question as to who bears the burden of proof but ultimately the question is why is this terror prejudicial and if you was harmless because there was overwhelming evidence and the overwhelming evidence in that case was that the fact that the and given the confessions of a lifelong friend had identified him as being a part of this offense whereas in this case the only have the whether the jury would have acted differently had they had those instructions with the opportunity to clarify as opposed to how they were th innocence right to remain silent burden of proof it's given those instructions so whether they're asked to do you want your standards or our language that can cover for that asking individual jurors to commit to these rules of law how the rule as it stands allows for asking individually or in groups so that really leaves a lot of room out there and if you if you look at the are many many judges that are following the the case and and getting commitments from jurors individually that they will follow all of the presumption of innocence that they understand that the defendant doesn't have to present any evidence that if he chooses not to testify that cannot be used against him and that the burden of proof rests on the state i mean if there is this clamor perhaps the lawyers should suggest that now the rule be amended right there so that individual judges will get an individual commitment from every jerk that they will accept the individual judicial process so that he didn't get a fair trial under the second prong that this is such a plain and obvious error of the mind that  of the closeness of the evidence there was a presumption that his trial was so in fact that he did not get a fair trial so i throw that out to the lawyers in this case there are so many decisions now about this rule and perhaps the rule all needs to be changed so that if this is what the lawyers really wants an individual commitment then they can get it by amending the rule i certainly think that would be helpful i think the rule is  jury and the body's jury is a sole fundamental or right it's the same as having a right to a jury or as opposed to a bench and the question is do i think because the rule itself says it's essential and that it's required is the judge must give them that the presumption is because it's essential and it wasn't done then you presume that you had a biased jury and if that's the case then surely the defendant in this case was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury and this was therefore playing error where's the case it says that we could  up back in one thousand nine hundred seven it wasn't required at that point it was just something that the defense had to request and over the decade between ninety seven two thousand and seven when it was amended i think the supreme court came to the conclusion that you know it just requesting it is not a sh i need that nexus but i guess that's pretty much i think we've covered him here and i'm three minutes initial four thirty one mandates but in the follow through only picked up in one case on three and then another case on two and that was how to be fair i don't know that there's mention to others i think once you get into this stuff of cross comparing the gravity of each of those four elements you make quickly come to never never in trying to straighten this thing out particularly  it's and i think that the concerns as to whether a harmless error would apply goes reaches far beyond that and i think that's where use if being the only two cases that stand for the fact that work or thirty one b must be read for beta if there is some divergence description follow its own precedent and its own reading and find that failure to strictly follow or for thirty one b does not violate a defendant's rights however driers in this case that issue does not necessarily have even have any bearing on the facts of this case as i've stated the import of this case is that there was in fact no right there is a little difference between the actual scenario they are here because i don't think he i don't think he did the presumption of innocence burden of proof yet there when he asked them question asking the jurors if they had any objection to following any of the principles which in compassed by furniture all principles and found in that case that it was more than substantial compliance but that was a case of no air and right in th really questions in for these reasons and the reason stated in our brief the people respectfully asked this court to affirm defendants convictions and i think