not by itself perhaps it could be one factor that could be considered as part of the context of the entire communication by meyer to determine whether it is a threat or  so in some circumstances perhaps yes contact out of the blue to a jerk could be considered part of or just some kind of threatening intent but in the context of this case where he hasn't contacted them in the five years since his conviction despite erroneous lee being sent their names and addresses suggests that he the court first announced the true threats doctrine there is a discussion you know i think context is important including for example the reactions of the listeners so i don't think just sending a letter or contacting the jurors could be by it's threatening and it's actually fairly common in wisconsin for defense attorneys to contact yours after a trial to see what happened during deliberation  no evidence that there was any admonition to the defendant during his first trial that he could not contact because i don't mean to you particularly if the judge talked to the jurors themselves say you don't have to take any phone call trial judge about phone calls or contacts to print person or otherwise that might be made to them that wasn't in the record it was not in the record but folks from the from the first trial yes yes no that wasn't  record that was my that's my question what did they come into this with some information that the judge had given them with regard to any contact they might have from people outside th different defendants who had their cases or at three different postures for these two different postures and there was a disagreement between the judge or the justices excuse me about where the problem with pink recent well because it's under can be decided under either objective or subjective the fact that the trial counsel failed to introduce objective evidence that he did not intend to threaten it was just reason for that would be that you know the jury concluded that mr my that the letter that the recipients of the letter just were not threatened by a writer that follows and that the jury also concluded well we can't  say beyond a reasonable doubt that this letter is objectively threatening if we think that four out of the ten recipients also thought that the letter was not threatening then they would turn that subjective intent fine get mr meyers testimony who was mr meyer testified about his subjective intent the jury may not have you know found him a compelling witness which is why it's important and so damaging were supposed to seal it but they didn't e probability is that the intent of events would have changed the result they say in some we're confident of the outcome of the trial is unaffected by the mission of the document as a semi or part of efforts of minds part of efforts and the testimony from his neighbor so the fact that if the disability obviated his ability to understand his own actions likely that he's actually engaging in conduct then his condition would not stand that's because the actor must intentionally engage in a course of conduct so if there is an incapacity defense for example that would of course be valid an additional point is that this is the actor intentionally gauges in a course of conduct so an inadvertent mailing perhaps a friend gave him a letter and asked him to mail it that wouldn't count yes to know that he is writing the words i think it's fair to say that he has to understand the english language but he does not have to understand how or if he can be convicted even if he did not understand how a reasonable person would interpret the language he is communicating so that would that would not be enough to  jurors had a moral responsibility to do what he said and that if they didn't do it he said harm would follow and the second letter he says i read the paper too suggesting that he's tracking the jurors every move and watching them making sure they're going to do what he said and then he  scare quotes you have nothing to fear from me in the second letter and are saying we have evidence beyond the content of the letter so we had nine jurors testify to the terror of the letters because they said that we were in fear of physical harm to ourselves or our families and then the detect at the police office once they received the complaints and the following monday they conducted an expedited investigation which is evidence that they took the threats seriously and all of this is against the backdrop of mayor's private previous conviction for threatening to kill two judges and if you are saying in context that is that it is covertly course and but nonetheless threatening he also has the testimony of officers courts in christianson and this is about their initial efforts to investigate the first complaint and whether or not the a s office gave information to take this complaint seriously when the detectives who were actually tasked with doing the full investigation receive the complaint in ordinary course they conduct an expedited investigation because of the seriousness of it so that that evidence would help them either and in the final pieces of evidence that he says should have been admitted by the testimony from his neighbor and him letters from two government officials and that's of this under he says this undermines the subjective  alternative to the mens rea element but that would undermine the object of telling the object of alternative and so therefore the outcome would not have been different this whole this whole thing on forcing with the first day by the court release of those names and address s perhaps so i'm not sure i have some of the what or how it wouldn't found out if they had raised well so i'm not sure if the court was not allowed to release the names and addresses to his attorney certainly his attorney should not have delivered them to meyer and certainly meyer should not have th previously gave meyer his case file and in that case file this docking was included and should not have been included so his lawyer committed an error there but meyer should not have despite that error that contacted them at all but he certainly should have contacted them with trial but i don't know about the initial yes that's correct so in this will trial we don't have those trial transcripts in the record but perhaps that evidence would help in a closer case but here are sent a letter that says i'm going to release your names and addresses to inmates who he knew would do i think that mr maher has demonstrated a disrespect for the entire justice system and so i think he's it would be essentially thumbing his nose in the face of the part of the court saying go ahead and contact them if you want you know i don't care but that doesn't undermine the threatening content of the letters and certainly from the jurors perspective when they knew that meyer was capable of threatening to kill two judges and just you know not to get too fine a point on that the court is on at the deference here on the practice cross so certainly it is not unreasonable you just have a simple contempt of court orders we don't know if you're on the record if there was a specific order to not divulge but it does say in the original trial docket publicly available docket that it was sealed so i think it's fair to say that there was at  jurors names and addresses were so yes that's that's correct so we didn't prosecute meyer for violating court order or prosecute him for stalking perhaps a prosecution could have been brought under that but the local prosecutor decided to take this course of action and i think it is  some to make the point that the local judicial system was inept were releasing his name so he says counsel that's one interpretation but at this point i mean we're asking whether a recent letter could have understood it even more threatening cases the jury's mind actually threatened necessarily went to the subjective subjective divide one of the i mean it's also that the actors acts cause the specific person to suffer harm so you could have it tougher than usual person and some of the jurors did testify i really wasn't threatened and i think it's perfectly possible to say hey a reasonable person might be scared by this but you have someone who says you know what actually i wasn't right  of severe emotional distress which is simply to threaten to feel threatened feel intimidated and so on but also it's just it's just illustrates why this was a close case for the jury which deliberated over the course of two days a reconstructed on this they must of it's reasonable if they concluded that for the recipients were not threatened do not feel threatened that the jury also decided we can't conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this letter is