given the free hand to refute any theory pressed against his innocence that was this expressed the denial mr skerritt when the judge issued the instruction to accountability a theory of criminality which had neither been charged in the outset of the case nor argued were dressed by either side the state or defense the defendant was given no chance to address rebut or even and then the courts overrule the objection and issued the instruction anyway well in this very core in people versus genius and said that when a jury's confused it is the duty of the trial court to clarify the  all about whether or not any evidence and the state i'm sure is going to make a lot of deal out of the evidence of accountability where the ripley evidence of what was going on in the vehicle on december th two thousand and sixteen unfortunately the case in that kind of speculation because there is nothing on the record as to what the beagle's occupants said to one another after the video of the confidential informants cameron took was you know taken off the scene she there was neither could be attributed to mr sterritt war in one case was directly attributable to him that being the mug shot there was a photograph of him in a jumpsuit which was his very own arrest photo presented over the objection by the on the evidence of the crime which use charge when you get into any instances of past criminality you get into the risk of him being judged on his past misdeeds rather on the evidence itself and the problem here is that that's exactly what was done and it wasn't just done once the jury asked to see all the photographs again including the motion they asked to see the video again which in the video the trial court  the request for a mistrial because the video was played before the jury whoops the word parole comes out the police officer here clearly on camera saying well he's on parole now there were three occupants in the vehicle on the december  th issue but that that trial where the december th case was going on very same time so there's taint everywhere here in both camps and the problem is once you hear the word parole that's it in my opinion that's that's prejudice because whether you attribute the word parole to the defendant and i can see that the record is not clear on who is on parole but the defendant was up with or it's attributable in the minds of the jury to the defendant or anyone who was sitting with you still have the danger of criminal practice the prejudice is there but the diff the judge says full steam ahead here we've got to go full steam ahead no matter the air we're going to just you know disregard it the problem is an issue under the defendant was giving a copy of the video he could if objected bring them motion before the trial happened but even if you if you can see that that's even a possible factual or argument i would say that in your gregory the duty is not on the defense to screen this kind of stuff from the jury they do you squarely on the state to screen this stuff from the  that is the problem it wasn't done here but there was this force this driving runaway train force at the trial court level to keep the train running and i think it just ran over mr scarier in a horrible way because he wasn't given a foreign fair trial and so on from because the law requires it under people who are gregory justice or pretty clearly requires the duty in and goes on in  the pinyin for quite some time about the state's burden of prosecution and it's instilled i think from the ethical duty they have which is to now to see conviction but to actually see that justice is done and that is where it screams from i think as a policy it's it's it's lethal so it's legal to the recipe for the truth of the state's theory and it's lethal to the just the argument that the verdict is just especially when you consider that the jury was so confused that they could even court should condone in any way shape or form by sustaining the convictions that my clients suckers on here right now in this river it's a thoroughly discredited and i would say that  because of the idea that it's being merely present at a crime automatically impedes to you specifically minority now if mr scary had been charged with criminal conspiracy or some kind of inten more prejudicial than probative in the general sense that certainly a possibility to art but in this specific sense with mr scarier in his specific case since there was no no evidence of what kind of interactions were going on between the occupants of the vehicle in december th in the record at least there can be no way that this court cannot have the fear that his conviction was not unfairly made based on that is not that we have to wait this court doesn't have to weigh whether or not there's enough evidence to convict him of association the issue is whether or not mr spirits rights were violated based on due process that's that that's where the focus of the court should be not on the whether there was enough evidence but whether the defendant was given enough chance to address that issue before the jury and there is absolutely zero opportunity there  with that i say i don't think i can address anything else other than i have so there's no other questions i think i will s what is that it should be what comes next after after prayer in this situation i think forbearance order millsap is what you do you just say you had all your instructions and that's it because if you start