and said i'm not going to let it go whether or not to send something back out and in fact put how do we justify just the proper exercise discretion when the judge denies the jury the right to see this video and he himself views it over and over and over in ultimately ruling on her deciding to be you tell me how do you justify that as a rollover into exercise of discretion example if they want to see that here you're missing the point the jury asked to see it he says one time that's it he's on the other hand in making the same evidence you need factual decisions us multiple times right and dilemma and then you come to justifying why i also think that whether the judge should have done that or not is a different question but if there's a very difference between the way you get to something at the number of times you feel with the end what happened was the judge viewed a bunch of times and said i don't see it time to kill over the man of the officer who was standing directly  v shows it back you know on everybody even the defendant acknowledged it hit the fan he just said it only hit once on when you see them the view also have the pictures that show the damage to the behind and it's a it's a have the testimony it really is only one piece of evidence and it matches the officer's testimony and even the defendant's that yes he did in fact the mayor and even if you listen to the judge's comments about like watching the video so many times i discretion to determine how much or how long or how many times the jury can consider a particular piece of evidence it would seem to me he doesn't have the authority to exercise that has never been the law and it's problematic because they could what if they wanted to see biohazard material where they want to see the drugs because they want to see the markings on it or they want to see what the money looks like  probably very flimsy tool back and that was what the defendant took out of the trunk and you see him doing in the video so i'm kind of access to every piece of evidence just because the judge wants to like that see it doesn't always that it doesn't always make sense the other thing is by bringing them into the jury room with the already present in making the record that's how we know that there was no if you look at the comments in context it was almost three pages the transcript was the entire comments because the judge also said you have to look at it yourself and draw whatever determinations or whatever information you can so he was telling them to look at it he was telling them he could take notes he did saying which was possibly an article to say i don't want to overemphasize one piece of evidence it's not fair for her and i think in that sense what you have to do that here over and over and over again just because they want to hear that way so they want to hear the words that were set up but it's different weight the weight that you give you might have a very short when this on the stand who makes a very powerful impact on the jury and they give it a time when they've only heard it once they've only seen it once and in fact if it was a witness testifying maybe one of the jurors were right in their nose every time that w talked about the specific subject as well i twitched well they're going to have to take that other jurors word for it they don't get to go back and review the witness testifying either was or wasn't that might not be there recollection so any others i don't know how on how fewer times other than one you can show something to someone or allow someone to do something give you jury to view and comment and unfortunately i've watched an awful lot of two and i end up having to rewind and look at things two or three times has nothing to do with criminal law or just as i do with the fact that if you're working with a medium that is reported very often you'll miss or you think you miss and you want to go back and review it so general experience or common everyday experience of life says that if you're going to watch something that you're supposed to watch where there's a trial just like at one time there were justices of the peace they were at the case if somebody appealed from there it was a whole trial in front of a ma i'm not actually talking about it for the purposes of appeal but what you're suggesting is that when the jury wants to see anything at all they have a complete right to treat you with as many times as they want why wouldn't they is there any we're going back to what i said before is there any case law that says the picture can't there's case law that says that that the trial judge has just scratched and to determine the motive and manner in which they feel the other day and that's the inherent ability to control their own courtroom and that's the court's discretion that's what we do here otherwise the jury in the middle passes and know that they want some piece of evidence amity and they don't get to