nine mr fletcher counsel first this case presents complicated issues that were difficult for any lay person to address let alone incarcerated pro se ready to win mr fletcher had to establish not only a causal connection between his injuries and taser shot he also had to explain to the jury the type of police control technique at issue a taser and the physical effects of that expert testimony was were required on both second it cannot be seriously disputed that if mr fletcher had counsel he could have destroyed officer going to its credibility officer graduates offered testimony in this case that flatly contradicted testimony he gave just a question hearing mr fletcher's criminal case but mr fleischer do not understand the evidence or it was well enough to use that transcript for impeachment experience counsel surely would have third despite the odds m we have an undisputed concrete evidence that mr fleischer did not know the first thing about taking sorry as a result he didn't do so he repeatedly wrote to the district court expressing his concerns about the discovery process and or i think if you look at the last five that they're the most compelling the problem i'm having here is this was a or two year period of time  that it should have understood that several of the tape on factors were satisfied for example the district court denied mr rogers motion to exclude certain impeachment evidence because quote the that submitting a fact that a pro se would again and submit adequate pretrial filings which the court must liberally construe does not mean that that same word again can adequately present his case at trial where as the district were instructed the jury here they must consider both parties on a level playing field it's a different skill set and one does not necessarily indicate that he will be able to remind you of that fact by the way we're not looking for edward bennett orders denying motions requirement counsel this case required expert testimony it required two types of expert testimony the first is a medical expert to establish a causal connection between mr fletcher's injuries and a taser shot you tried to our opening brief shows that several of the conditions for which mr fletcher was treated are linked to taser shocks the second point is that one of the injuries for which mr fletcher was treated was a hernia and he was treated for that a year and a half after the taser shock in the district court said simply because of the temporal remoteness that could not have possibly been linked to taser shop but what those records actually show began to complain of pain associated with a hernia a year and a half before he was seen by doctors so that's right around the time that he was stays mr fletcher deposition testimony is entirely consistent with that so the district court's finding know what would you do for you know and in this case you make say that the best evidence that the decision on appointment counsel was wrong was when he gave what amounted to about two and a half pages of direct testi crusade was a good who was incarcerated who needed to do discovery would be entitled to counsel if in have taken discovery about rises the police logs of that night which would have shown whether a second officer was carrying a taser because mr fleischer believes he was tasered by a second officer and you know ross said the same thing in a deposition mr fletcher also could have taken discovery from the taser data itself from the actual machine which would have conclusively shown how many times it was deployed turning to the narrative testimony experience counsel could have crafted mr fletcher's testimony in a much more compelling way it was disjointed confusing incomplete he mixed legal argument with factual statements was very confusing he didn't convey to the jury the first story may please the court proceeding minute on behalf of officer crinkle as this was a straightforward federal court case is straightforward as you possibly could get and it's especially evident today with the two cases that were previously argued this is a one issue case where there officer crinkle it's used excessive force against mr fletcher with not that he should be for us it is not the issue before before this court the only issue that was raised is whether mr fletcher deserved to be appointed counsel but the simplicity of the case is one of those factors as to whether counsel should be appointed which is why and i bringing up court has said excessive force cases are not that complicated it typically comes down to the plaintiff in this case mr fletcher saying excessive force was used against him the officers and then the independent witnesses saying it was not it's not a deliberate indifference case such as was pointed out by judge fisher where you see where you see expert liability experts receive police officer experts come in to testify about what should have been done whether there was probable cause  bit after that's clearly after the fact i mean the question is this in to the fact that the jury found that doesn't answer the question of whether or not the court was  say hey i should have had an attorney even in the most simplest of cases which we have here that's not what he's asking for he's only interested in his own case but that was all of it may be as significant ramifications for the courts across our to your point as you pointed out earlier there were three different magistrate judges who looked at the tape on factors independently five or six different times during the course of this litigation at different points in  than capable of understanding the facts he was more than capable capable of filing motions of responding to motions refuting my motion for summary judgment filing motions for continuances which were granted so that he could go out and try to get that's exactly right and that's what he did he it was his determination as to how long he wanted to stand up there and tell his story that night and it wasn't a lot of his case to go out of his case depend on cross examination in the vigor of it and he  didn't have some of the documents that would have allowed him to be more artfully cross examined i disagree but the medical evidence that was presented to judge calls and but not presented to the jury clearly showed as a result of the taser event emergency room records completely contradicted those assertions there were no there was no removal of the tasers from his testicles there's no heart attack occurring in the emergency room he was high on was part of my initial disclosures i would have turned over every document that would have been in the police file and said i'm going to use to do that yes a i pod initial disk was very disclosure and it's it's become problem in the system where they're angered by their sentence and they're seeking retribution through a civil case and have a difficult time finding counsel to take it had three magistrate judges review the tape on factors on five or six different occasions at different parts of this litigation as it has quicker as it progressed over the four years of litigation and went through those factors evidence is absolutely relevant to liability as well as them just this court said in the sure are and not cases that whether the plaintiff was injured is a relevant factor in the viability determination the district court here instructed the jury to consider whether mr fletcher was injured and defense counsel in her opening and closing emphasize the fact that mr fletcher was not injured that's where number three were not before is that because this case involved a taser it's actually very similar to the law but in different cases in the record in different cases medical expert testimony is required to explain to the jury the seriousness of an injury that may not be apparent to them and the appropriate treatment here we're not talking about physical strikes or a baton we're talking about a taser as the first circuit held in the jennings case when you're dealing with a type of police control technique that jurors plagiarizer not be familiar with the best way to explain but that technique is and circumstances under which it's reasonable to use it is expert testimony and final point going to five this in response to your question before i sat down touched barry said asked the judge carlson helped mr fletcher along the way he didn't certain respects but he also held that expert testimony would not be required and then excluding mr fleischer snedeker records because he didn't have an