she very reasons you know the situation to be that which is described in this instruction being unconstitutional intrude by police officers in her apartment for purposes other than arrest pacifically nonconsensual world the search in the state is pretty low to have a jury instruction read forth and all through history do is show that there is at least very slight evidence supporting the instruction being given and there is plenty  what the officers knew they were doing involving hearing and to the point i was i was making as far as evidence supporting this theory mystics testified she was in her apartment eight pm that night sometimes in the living room watching the sometimes the kitchen cooking dinner when same maybe they were there just to serve and this year that your position that you should have gotten that instruction courage but then you covered it in arguing that the instructions otherwise cover that situation wasn't that the argument  only a small phone you just have to let it happen it doesn't go very well for matt construction the principle of all that someone hand actually resist an officer is from their home in certain situations so this instruction needed to be given so the jury if they did come to the our argument here is not an argument the state enough presented evidence to support their theory argued is simply that jane is that you and she can see provided enough evidence to justify at least the jury being informed of the full gamut of political relevant course of the instructions but i think when we look at the s p issue of judgment when we're looking at is an instruction that was not appropriate to a jury the defendant's theory however was it was be presented by other instructions this she had presented and they were given including the language of the fourth amendment itself so clearly the overall theory was nickname it is my family then she would have thought it was going to be a search rather than an arrest they were following him calling his name this is an area that they only person how would you automatically assume that they are pursuing him for arrest for example they're pursuing him because they want to talk to him and they're pursuing him because they think he just observed something and maybe he doesn't want to be a rat they want him to t i understand what you're saying and i may be making an assumption my assumption maybe one fear of the trial is oh the record the actual trial ended evidence presented to the jury does not include w whether she knew what was happening while the police were there and put in our position is it wrong for properly did that to this instruction primarily because he would stretch into the whole didn't tell the jurors what it was that the defendant was defending against proposition was that she had no reason to know what the officers were doing and that's why she said they had an innocent didn't have a warrant but the jury or the jury instructions taken as a whole provided the jurors everything they would have needed based on the evidence to make that determination you are seeing your questions be there provided to the situations they can decide which situation it was if you're come to the conclusion that he she thought this was an unconstitutional injury they need to understand that she could exercise reasonable force leaving them out of it