bottom line at least it seems that we have a finding by the trial court that none of the george was exposed to the information that you're worried about what are we supposed to do with that i mean it doesn't seem to me that that's clearly erroneous is there any information in and and certainly the issue you have missed stores handwriting analysis report so looking at those three different things including focus on mark pryor i think that's i think that in order to look at the findings and i do believe that the court's finding was erroneous in terms of determining that that anyone saw this misinformation or that it could have impacted and that is because of the predicament that the court found itself in when the jurors twere loaded down with hundreds of exhibits and asked what  can we have a list of what we weren't supposed to see and reasonably the court said no we can't point that out that's going to cause a problem they were they were in serious bind and all they could do at that point was inquire after the verdict after that information had sat in the jury room for three that these would have been things with the superior court having and they would have talked about prior convictions and the jury didn't just said nobody recalled that that time that's to me is not a clear enough finding that there was no way anybody site when you have people who say we don't remember when you're using the word recall it was more definite than that the judge that i'm going to ask this question of the inter jury and if and everybody says yes please raise your hand has anybody else the finding of fact basically by actually nobody saw this great clearly or wrote it's clearly a rony just only because you think it was impossible i think the judge knowledge that it was impossible and on the record earlier he says i realize that the jury would have no way of knowing if they saw something that wasn't on the list given the amount of exhibits we have given to them he tries to go back and fix that he says there's no way they could have now he acknowledges that reality he then tries to fix it after the verdict by being more specific about these particular documents regarding the convictions but the information that he asked was you know do you have information about the prior crime there would have been a superior court heading and a number and to me that is not enough  specificity that we can know for sure when we have to when we look at those exhibits and we look at what was in there and know that a jury could have been flipping through and seen the fourth page that said that he's not to have contact with anyone at the foursquare church that this crime involved the church members something as you know minimal is that it could have been glanced for a moment could certainly have had an impact and the jury may not have realized it was the document the judge was talking about and we do other a number of what they have been in order to find anything but i believe that the i believe that the convictions were exhibit number nine tenths nine fourteen and the the handwriting i think we're eight eleven something like that it's a foregone we don't have any evidence so i don't think we have any way to show for sure where they were at they were certainly there and i think that what is what is driving the problem and underlying the situation is that we all know as jurors and as human beings when we make  number of things that could have been problematic for a juror first of all the fact that there was a conviction that may have been different from what they heard have that may have been more detail than they were uprising to try actions from that yes but that that this was a situation where they were allowed to then possibly see what the punishment was a german style it wasn't sufficient punishment and i felt they were obligated to do something more you are really awful and speculation on top of that gesture and speculation well your honor your honor but what we have to do here is look at what reasonable possibility is there and i don't think what i'm saying is in a logical leap that's what the work requires the nutrients to stun gun and that's exactly an issue that was that points to the prejudice your hon order and order that they should never have seen that is a clear risk and we can't ignore that and we don't have sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no chance that it could have had an impact we don't have to prove that it did just that there was a slight chance that doesn't require a huge leap of logic and i don't believe these require a huge leap of logic which you know a lot of your time questions and i'll stop you from addressing anything else ok i think in terms of obviously those convictions are the most serious but you have to also look at the cumulative aspect that we also have these additional pieces of information at my breaking point that you were that was found and raised and the the store report handwriting report was in there along with these fingerprint records and while the government's position is well those were simply cumulative the fact remains that the jury was looking for what how to weigh this evidence and what they got was something they shouldn't have received which was a report that that has the typically it would have been admitted because of the added weight that it would give when the when the jury is supposed to base their decision on the testimony and i'm just you now you're in the i don't think category you can tell us what that was kept on and i don't know you know on the prosecutor perhaps you and we're balancing credibility in the weight of all of the information in front of us at some point for every person there is something the final straw that breaks the camel's back the final nail in the coffin that pushes us in this case we don't know if any of that janitors the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable possibility that the evidence could have had an impact and i don't think they've done that here they have not shown us that beyond any reasonable doubt no logical explanation of certainly there was a lot of evidence your honor and the question about the figures opposition to that evidence is tied up in not only this aspect in terms of was can we be assured beyond any reasonable doubt that any piece of this information may have  well i think it is i think the credibility issue is crucial ron but i also think there is more to that in terms of the discrete fact that could have been inflammatory to any particular germ when you look at the details that that someone may have slipped through and seen as i stated earlier so i do think that it's not just that they knew there was a conviction  conviction that was listed that the punishment that's listed on the the next few pages of election wasn't sufficient but in germany then concerned that mr prime was involved in a crime involving a church but those are the kinds of things that if it's going to come into evidence at information were possibly prejudicial and do not require the leap that would be necessary to say there's no way they could they can make an impact unless you have additional questions i'd like to move on to that counsel issue briefly before i take some time for  first the original motion certainly the court did make an inquiry off the record our position is that that inquiry was not sufficient because of the fact that as mr prime target for court his lawyer had not discussed the motion with him had not prepared him that court so that he wasn't going to hear it and that well well i think that particular issue in that first emotion is that there is potential that one could go either way on it has the judge inquired further i is certainly a problem and the court can consider time as the court also has to consider the conflict i think you heard there was a some sort of written documentation submitted to the court a couple of days before the trial started and the judge was not available mister i think his feeling was that under the he talked about the fact that there may in fact the additional information that is needed and warranted but under the facts of this case and this particular handwriting expert that he had he felt there was sufficient information to uphold the opportunity or tell me exactly m put in chronological order in the boxes we kept them together through the trial both the ones that were admitted versus not admitted we thought about that even before the closing arguments because we came up with a new master list so that the jury when they got back to the jury room would have somewhat of a guide so we thought about doing that when we brought them out on the morning of trial because with the end of trial because we used them for closing we just simply forgot to do it i think i can explain it to stand in the whole box  as pointed out mrs norris report is the the lemonade twelve to get to have gotten to the criminal judgments they would have had to have gone through at least another ten to fifteen twenty other exhibit frankly we don't know jurors could have been jumping around but we do know that they that this happened they asked for stores report and then within a minute or two they found it we are called we're we're told what happened and it's at that point t asked that question they look and no we we didn't see it and and he makes mention of that so i think he certainly was satisfied given their physical responses based on their facial expressions that they did not see it mr prime sentencing on his part criminal records at all no response is that mr caldwell is there anything else you want me to inquire of the jury during the polling process mr caldwell i think the courts addressed the issues so he was given an opportunity to ask for individual polling didn't t illustrate the what a strange standard it is for the governments and i think that is why they use that language but even under applying that stringent standard to the keyset bark here again all the items that she had accumulated to to analyze and then her conclusions there was nothing more beyond that there was nothing in there that was different than what she testif in order for it to be prejudicial there must be some direct and rational connection to the main issue mr caldwell point out any part of this report that we're talking about that was prejudicial that was not part of the you running expert breaks down to about ten exhibit five of which were money orders and checks from victims some of those sales to relate to counterfeit money orders that their victims have received e mail correspondence and one post it no clearly cumulative and those could not do not relate at all to whether or not michael crime was involved in the scheme or not so those documents even in their totality would not warrant or support this of course i've read it but i'm not sure you detail by detail i think that my position is that when you have that whether it's exactly the same or not it bolsters the credibility that we use and allows a jury to go through a process where whereby the defendant is not allowed to whether the jury may have interpreted this in a way that leaned them towards agreeing with her at a level that mr prime's attorney was not allowed to deal with because they were not allowed to know if this evidence went back but i don't know that i think anything