so when the bail was authorized it was authorized to return for that you know it was wrong i'm sorry it was it was the bail was on a prior case and then so he committed the substantive offenses case it may have been a robbery but i'm not sure during the time that he was on pretrial release he committed the alleged offenses here by the carjacking and the robbery and based on those actions the district attorney's office charged him with the substances as well as a matching bail jumping for each case where you said matching but there is a different element right there there is a different element under blocker isn't that isn't that the end of all you need is one different element and you've got two crimes so it's not double jeopardy well you have the second bail jumping has essentially your honor the substantive fence acts bail jumping when you look at the wisconsin jury instructions and the way wisconsin treats this law for example if you were to get a conviction the jury instruction presented to the court print presented the jury will tell the jury that they must find that the defendant chart was convicted was committed each of the individual elements of the underlying offense in addition to being on bail same thing if he was to enter a plea but apparently it means in wisconsin means that you committed a crime while you are on bail making that a worse act so doesn't that mean you have two elements for the bail jumping you have  low unusual i don't know if the other states in our survey have similar bail not that i'm aware of your honor that this does seem to be specific to wisconsin and that's why this this case is more similar long to the felony murder cases like harris  how would you characterize a charge for unlawful use of weapon by a phone and charging that same film with a felon in possession as well would you characterize them as and again you know i would have to look at it i mean here's where you know i didn't ask that yeah i'm unusually obtuse the way if you have a felon in possession it's also unlawfully possessing a weapon he could be charged with unlawful possession of a weapon and because he's a felon being charged with a found possession those are two separate and distinct offenses when someone reaches the status of felon in our society we prohibit them from carrying a firearm can't you analogize here that what the legislature really intended that was when someone's on bail even though with there was probable cause to arrest and detain them society is letting lot of billers a whole set of different social interests that are being served to make sure that person doesn't commit another crime so when you characterize the the elements of substantially the same in fact are really not when someone's on daily takes on a whole different status that is correct but the way wisconsin treated it they treated it as a separate crime they treated not as a status of because they because they referred to everything in the criminal code yet it is that they would not just a short him way of doing what ice suggests they intended to do and that is anyone that's on bail t commits any criminal offense because of their status poses a whole different set of social interest well there is a similarity there yonder but i think the difference is that again it comes back to black white or black or in  assuming that the elements are incorporated the subset of fans are incorporated into the bail jumping offense under blocker you cannot come to any conclusion but that they are that the  right there they are not the same exactly but just like they are a lesser included the same way again in felony murder you have the felony and then the murder of the phone is a lesser included offense of that i think it operates the same way here just like in harrison jones and i think this is unique to wisconsin and just a little bit of how you know boy situation while not completely unusual is not generally how does this statute is used more often than not the it's used as a form of of charge bargaining when you have a person whose violate the bond it's a way for the parties to come to bail you have to violate bail right right now and i understand it's a separate that's a separate concern right you know white people it is a separate concern on that but when you look at the when you look at what the how the interplay between the two charges or the two statutes that you're talking about there is no similarity between the murder elements  jumping elements contain all the elements verbatim from the underlying offense let me ask it this way would you say that being in law unlawful possession of a firearm is a lesser included offense of being a felon in possession i think the answer probably is clearly not i think no and again but there again you've got the same elements except for this want to sort of characterize this one little incidental element that is the status being on bail are being put on right and i'd be happy to kind of address that  looking at the elements closer if the court would want to be happy to something extra but the way i look at it still think that there is a difference between that situation and here where they're just wholesale incorporated right into the belgium statute ok elements test in this case the wisconsin courts concluded that the wisconsin legislature intended veil jumping to be a separate offense from the subset of offenses the elements are not the same if you are going to be guilty  about the legislative history in wisconsin about bail jumping the focus is not on the underlying crime the focus is on the violation of the bail and that is the prosecution for belgium and so the wisconsin legislature has looked at this issue and said they are separate issues and the nelson case the defendant argued i was convicted of sexual assault and i was also convicted of a bail jumping same argument jumping is a greater offense so i should not be convicted of looking at the wisconsin legislators intent and they intended to separate counties separate crime separate offens interpret the drive the term what drive means under the statute and that's something that is best left to the states and the sec is nelson jacobus i mean i think those cases are interpret what the legislative history intended i don't think there is a clear statement on