plenty ask it it clearly would have been nicer to have that information although we may have it from the fact that the jury convicted on other counts but setting that aside  brief and i think it is something that the jury have to make a back to determination is if there's a great percentage or something of that nature that the two should be a special birthday form and in this particular case there is a reform required certainly is but did you have a you have a case that provides that the you know most of the cases i think all the cases i've read simply require the district court to instruct the jury as it was instructed here that it must be unanimous as to the three predicate crimes and i haven't seen a case yet in this area where it's been found to be an abuse of discretion or error to have required the special verdict form the media you have a case that has required it and said it was air otherwise spring court in richardson in this c c c charge area only required that the jury unanimously agree there was no requirement of a special verdict form it might be prudent and some circumstances but there doesn't seem to be any direction from the supreme court that would require basically lose lose organization bunch of guys from garland around buying and selling drugs which is very similar to slate actually here in crazy where i live mid level drug dealer buying selling drugs fulsome i mean the evidence was mr mccoy's role in her decision and his insisting that she have the abortion his going to the abortion center wanted to be in there to witness it and  somebody is in control of almost everything i think it's relevant to that extent and you didn't make a prejudice argument in the district court and i'm not sure d how far that would have gotten but it seems to this political people have strong opinions on both sides and you know during eastern north carolina trying to decide on a case with drugs in to just go off on that tainted twice with miss parker when the judge can go way outside the actual evidence that came into trial i know the case was not really supported the defendants on that but in the great scheme of things in this case they brought in a good afternoon you may have please the court my name is david bragg and i represent the united states i do have a few things to say on some of the issues raised by biden mr ashton but given that there is a lot of issues i did want to just open at the beginning and see if there were any particular questions  on this bill tracker i have a question about the abortion testimony yes as modest damage from your brief that you said it was relevant because they went to put the planets control and direction of miss parker but it  the testimony that she didn't do what he said she didn't get the abortion yes yes your honor it is it is the testimony that she did not get the horse and and so i think the control would be here that she didn't get the abortion but she did go with him to the clinic and she hid the fact that she didn't get the course and so she walked out the back door i believe the testimony says without ever telling him that she had not gotten the oppression and her his control is is so complete that he didn't actually find out that she was still pregnant until after her arrest when she's in jail and her mother goes to h and says you know this is a problem season she's pregnant and so that that that i think it's the control and the thing i would add to what does and what does it abortion have to do with the fact that she had she was pregnant well i mean i guess what i would say is he wanted her to you have an abortion and she wanted him to think she did you know he controlled her such that she went along with it it was sort of a passive aggressive no he she didn't actually have the abortion but she wasn't willing to directly or him and i did wan just something to the relevance of this line of testimony and general you know for that for this charge we have to to prove minutes man or supervision to be spied people and for most of those people he he tells her that if he if she wants to be around she needs to be an asset to that's that's how much of control there was and she testifies also that you know she sold drugs for him because was how she how he reacted when he found out she was pregnant and i would say her reaction is problem that is because the pregnancy impacts any relationship or pregnancy impacts any relationship and the relationship was the source of his control the two so that i would also add that we cited some cases in our twenty eight share letter that ox about she's hiding the fact that he's he's pregnant all that good a show for a state of the it's very difficult in a case like this to sort of surgically remove the aspects of the personal relationship from the drug when the relationship is the basis for that so whether or not we just turman that the evidence only a morsel was relevant what if we determined it was nonetheless prejudicial what happens in that circumstance that your honor i think if it's if the question is whether or not it's prejudicial then people are on plane air or both because they that prejudice objection is is a separate section and here when we get to the rd prong of plane air reviewable look at what it up affected the outcome of the trial judge deborah says it's at sentencing that so and the other thing i would say about prejudice is this was not incredibly of emotional test first of all if you look at the testimony she doesn't talk about the impact on it on her she doesn't talk defendant's girlfriend having an abortion and so i think if there den of prejudice objection the court would have considered that issue he might have decided but maybe an instruction there could have been a lot of actions he might have decided in the midst of that because no prejudice objection was race nothing could be done about that and and and terms of how prejudicial while it's the attorneys in the courtroom really the people in the best position to bet you if this was prejudicial and one would think that if it was really be prejudicial the defense attorney would have been jumping up and down objecting  found that even if the miscalculated so i think in terms of doubt the guidelines confidential on furman's talks about sentence own words where he said that he is a drug dealer his whole life in the letters to an entreaty up parker he's talking about still having five bricks abortion evident is highly inflammatory very prejudicial hot button issue it was and still is and they did need that is totally necessary to show her evidence was totally unnecessary and we would submit inflammatory and especially when we came up both times again i do not think it ought to be under play or standard but  this parker was someone with a reputable history prior to this and did not have a record and to get into all that extraneous information with her i would submit very very prejudicial came came in far as the the total says there is incurred as we said who are i believe the sentence is greater than well thank you mr ashton i understand your court appointed is that right i am yeah well i want to express our appreciation and recognize that as you know we value that enorm