with the case he had already charged twenty one dollars and thus was no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court however at that time there was also the law say that there was jurisdiction and all criminal court someone who age out of indicated that in this particular case that he could have been charged as an adult even when he was a younger is that correct that  nevada is always subject to the jurisdiction of some court and if the defendant is charged into the age of twenty one dollars that's the district court if the defendant is charged under the age of twenty fatah supreme court said in barron you agreed with my reading of it i think it's plainly what it said is the person charged after the age of twenty one dollars never had a right to be in juvenile court  that's not what our procedural rules are substantive rules said our procedure and substantive rule said that it would be charged in adult court and that's a reading of nevada's procedural and substan rules unless it's a pretext or sharod as we've said in one case we've got to follow that now judge smith was asking you about a separate point and that's really the one i want to ask you about now you seem to be arguing your brief here well even if that's true under previous law there's a statute that says somebody who is discovered to have been eighteen or nineteen or under twenty one when he committed his crime should be remitted to juvenile court for for something it doesn't say for what and you make that argument to us but i'm not in your brief you say well gee even if because he was fat he was plus less than twenty when he committed his crime you have the right to be sent to juvenile court which might have made a determination of some kind i don't know what but i don't see that argument being having been made to the state court it involves of an interpretation of state law and unfortunately if you didn't exhaust it even if the state doesn't raise it at but tells us we can't address it to the state court that he was his constitutional rights were violated because he was deprived of the right to be sent back to juvenile court for some purpose i don't know what or if you  l that was my understanding of the statutory scheme but i thought your brief argued that he was deprived of some important rights because under the previous scheme even though he was over twenty one he might be sent back to juvenile court if you're not making that argument if you're not making that argument and there's no reason for us to find out whether it's exhausted no there i go i'm not making that argument the only reason i brought up the fact that he had that about a man who brutally raped the woman has given her hell which subjected him to trial as an adult in state court he managed to escape detection until he was an adult and then claim that he not be held responsible for his crime however his argument really in principle upon which the that's that's that's where i have some difficulty with your argument it may not matter in light of better but if in fact as the state mistakenly believed mr zimmerman could not have been tried and so this retroactive change of the law was made it strikes me as a text it strikes me as a textbook ex post facto violation so it's not  a change in the law that is why retroactively and maybe somebody subject to trial couldn't have been tried before is no is the picture of an ex post facto violation in the dictionary what is the reason that i escaped that problem here is the nevada court said well that was never the law the the new with the new law it didn't change that he was always subject to the jurisdiction of the court so i think  least that's not the case here what happened here is that because of the nature of the crime that there were any minute he was always subject to trials and it all and it is their court so there are a number of situations in place at the time that they remained committed  crime that allowed for juveniles he tried in district court one of those things was landed a juvenile at least fourteen years old charged with special assault involving the use for and use of force or violence against the victim could be given the baron decision because a juvenile under the circumstances this judge smith pointed out would have been entitled to argue to the juvenile court that you shouldn't transfer i've got into your discretion not to transfer me and i have got certain certain circumstances that would mean that i should be and that's where that would have been an important right if i read you and i'd like to have that right your argument has to be that only relevant because he was arrested after age twenty one and so i don't know why you're going back to that argument you know with your original argument to the to the district court but in the absence of baron i don't know how it works procedural right the ability to argue to the juvenile judge that he shouldn't be subjected to that larger a larger punishment because he met certain criteria now i don't have to address that i for clarification of the law language in order to avoid an undesirable hour but even that is supreme court was too few about whether the amended statute was a new law or a clarification