first is that which applies to all summary judgment cases that disputed issue should be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party and that all reasonable inferences should be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party we believe that the district court went  certain extent in doing so but didn't complete its duty and process in that regard the second cardinal rule is that in cases where the only individual who has the capacity to contradict the officer his version of events is deceased as a result of the use of force the court has to credit circumstantial evidence medical evidence forensic and other physical evidence which we believe the court did not do in this case so we seek that the jury would have to disbelieve the testimony of all the deputies with respect to the standing up portion that the only on something that was when he was taken down or guided down as the deputies like to talk about it and or that he was somebody put his knee on his back the taken favorably because possibility you know it kind of open ended so that's what i'm trying to focus on i understand that  reasonable jury would find that it was more likely than not that rather than have a healthy eighteen year old boy who had no history of physical disability or illness aside from his mental illness who had been admitted for four days inpatient at u c l a or excuse me county u s c medical center and had a large variety of tests run on him all of which came back that he was completely fine rather than decide that this boy all of a sudden for no reason for unknown causes suffered acute hemorrhagic pain free otitis and died thirty six hours after the use of force incident that a reasonable jury would find it possible that more likely than not the cause of the acute p that would have taken to cause the kind of hemorrhage twist pain prius could have been a single blow it could upon come from the front it could have come from the back mr was also was very sin in the slight build he was only five foot five he weighed only one hundred forty five pounds he was outnumbered four to one by deputies who were significantly taller than him and who weighed on average two hundred pounds in fact during his deposition deputy to screen and i believe this is page seven fifty seven of the excerpts of record that he took her you know even admitted when asked during that position when you learned of mr was alice's death two days or less than two days after the use of force incident did it run into your mind that his death may have been drawn the same conclusion i'm going to have you tried this ground over again because like judge fisher i'm struggling with finding a triable issue of material fact with regard to the excessive use of force and i take it from your answer that even though you're not going to be able to present any direct evidence that any force was applied to either his abdomen or his back given the timing of his death healthy before very short time after the incident use he passed away that that that could have only come from the excessive use of force that's the that's the theory and the of force incident what we have to ask the jury to prove and what we believe a jury could decide was that it was more likely than not caused during or occurred during the use of force incident thirty six or thirty eight hours before his death and so your honor is correct there is no concrete evidence here and the deputies than i that they struck him in the abdomen but the deputies also submit that the only force used was a full force punch to the face and take down that would account for the swelling in his on the last side of his face it doesn't account for the bruising that the coroner found on the left side of the skull and also doesn't account for the la aulus his hand so the fact that there were additional injuries to mr rose all is discovered at the time of autopsy is another fact that lends the in france that additional uses a forest or something must have happened to mr rose all asked during that to what could have transpired after the takedown incident and in that out scenario there's the interview with the victim here and he does not complain about any least in the account at sears a i understand but  does he ever complain about having been punched in the stomach or the back does he ever complain about pain  complain about anything that would have caused those lacerations and other words there's a causation issue as to the gaffe that the court was concerned about to i understand your concern your honor fourth first with respect to the gap in time between the use of force incident and mr as all this is death according to the defendant's own policies mr results would have been checked in on every fifteen minutes or thirty minutes there's some dispute in the record as to whether or not the policy said fifteen or thirty but we know that someone would have looked in on mr results every fifteen or thirty minutes and we also know according to the defense that he was evaluated by to address the second part of your honor's question mr rose aulus his lack of complaints this is an argument that the defense raises that's very alarming to the appellants for the sole reason that mr was all this was known and housed in the mental health unit because of his mental incapacity he was known to be mute he was known to be in keepable of comprehending in responding to questions and instructions he was suffering from auditor trial judge during his criminal trial raised issues as to whether or not this person was even competent to stand trial so to use the fact that someone so mentally incapacitated such as mystery's all this was incapable of self assessing the nature of his injuries we don't think as a reliable argument from the of how you stand point more over during the interview with lieutenant sax when she asks him what happened are you hurt he tells her i'm scared of the police yes i'm scared of the not consistent one of them a good deputy lead roles or temporal study he prepared to use of force report independently and didn't talk to anybody about it but his reforms repeated verbatim whole sentences from deputy novell report including a typo when he was asked about a defeated rule said no i explain nation so you got people who are definitely involved in this takedown and the punch who are lying arguably  should that not concern us about the validity of the rest of their comments your honor i don't think that at the time that they were deposed it was years after the incident a well there's no evidence that ted rose or that franklin novella or at all had anything to do other than with taking him to the ground there's he had already happened very quickly and once he was confronted you had four deputies who've declarations and depositions all say this took place in the matter of seconds so you have four heavy deputies confronting this guy each grabbing two of them grabbing separate arms and one grabbing them around the tur another punched him in the face and then they as they are fully call that guy didn't him down to the ground they all use that term so there's clearly coming across at leas in the testimony in the declarations sort of a party line which is not unfamiliar and all we have is the statements and all we have from the victim is an account of what he told the supervisor who by the way why wasn't  questions and i don't want to forget about the first line but i'll answer the second one and well first of all that those nurses were not deposed so it would be a little bit of speculative as to why they didn't take off his safety he was wearing a suicide safety council kind of a thick patted down but i would i would suppose the reasonable inference would be because he didn't have any complaints of anything other than he had some bruising around his definitely going through a psychotic episode starting on september twenty sixth one week before this incident and he is selectively mute there are times when he refuses to answer questions that doesn't mean that really think this thing through in ways that we one would not normally do right in there because that ok so you got what my colleague just mentioned you also have the fact that none of the other use of force reports another one hears also the fact that neither of the use of force reports or the internal affairs report said rosol it was still resisting after he was punched yet none of the deputies now testify that he continued to resist while on the ground so we got at least three from my perspective material inconsistency is or failure to address matters that with a mute person a mentally ill person speak to significant and under the case law when someone is dead like that what's our duty in terms of how we analyze what happened well ok he he spoke in the video when  interviewed him some female middle aged female interviews him she is very kind very warm and he he does speak and he speaks you can look at the medical records which are all a part of the record and you will see that he is speaking so while he was selectively mute at times in the week preceding this incident he was by no means muti spoke about whether or not the  here you have a deceased person who was mentally ill which was known to these officers he starts running away from them no place to go all those and you've got four people surrounding this little guy and they pounced on  of the punched in the face from what i can tell on the record it was a sucker punch you had no idea i was coming and he isn't quote guided to the ground all these big guys who are getting football players after a game they get all kinds of bruises it's kind of common sense so how would a small man of that size not suffer bruises by that happening to him i'm just like you read common sense or something this is not an themselves or a danger to others mr gonzalez himself the day before had had a fourteen day hold put on him because he was a danger to others they are considered a danger to but in one way well he was just the only way they could keep him a spy having him on a involuntary hold and he was found to be at that it because of how always wanted a danger to life because i think the specifics of it are really not relevant because i think what's relevant i'm asking counsel why did the officers think he was a danger to others you brought up you said he was a fourteen day hold because he was a danger to others i e the deputies implicitly apparently according to you had reason to believe he was a danger to others you know what way was he did they have reason to believe he was a danger to others that's what i'm trying to  them to guard them and the inmates and to protect themselves but and so the term used to provide a predicate for allowing you to keep someone who is a pretrial detainee incarcerated isn't that the magic language that supreme court requires basically what language said he's a danger to others or to well  without some evidence on it it may suggest that yet it's another illustration of where this kind of you know you say that because that's what you need to say to keep him there and if you'll say that to keep him there why wouldn't you say some of the other things that were necessary to dispel responsibility from the county or well he did have an advocate that advocated on his behalf the day before this incident who did not me ask you this council because we're not here called upon to the site exactly what happened then obviously you've got arguments to make and you're entitled to make those arguments and to point out all of these issues such as his selective mutism and the fact that he didn't report any sometimes you've got those arguments that you can raise to the jury but on the other hand counsel's also got arguments that she can raise to the jury be inconsistent season the officers report she's got cross examination materials in the way that the officers reported the incident she's got the inference that sometimes manifests that very shortly after the use of force she's got the absence of any evidence that could explain any injuries that could have led this death so why this go to the jury that's what we're here to decide is whether their travel issues of fact and then send you back and you can both argue your respective positions to the jury and they'll make a decision as to what happened well because the only and you can say the only evidence it is not the only evidence he have the physical trauma and the not correct he jail it was a preexisting condition it didn't take any blunt force at all as your position well absolutely ok challenge his declaration across the board is being unreliable organic the fact that he came into the jail or was present for whatever reasons but it was and it didn't depend on his having a blunt force strike to the which means it's an unknown cause but dr lux mana testified at least thirty percent of all cases have an unknown cause that's why we eat that's why we object to that doctor all hollerin was unreliable because he doesn't even deal with that issue at all ok so just to step back then what we do have however is the fact of this case where there was bodily injury inflicted upon him during the confrontation in the hallway so you have a circumstance however rare pancreatitis may be a circumstance which could have caused it with right could have caused it ok cause and so you have that circumstance and then the question is whether we should whether the jury should be allowed to consider whether all of these circumstances we've been talking about were and more probably than not the cause of why he had this  turned out to be a fatal injury and that's what we're focused on here right yeah ok now i want clarification because all of the deputies were asked about when they could do a punch to the face and when they could do a take and every one of them said it had to be an acute forget the exact phrasing but there was a threshold under the county policy you couldn't do either unless this person was that's why i was reacting to your invocation of the fourteen day hold and your answer gives me little comfort because basically you're saying anybody who's in that unit is automatically in the qualifier for that kind of treatment if the logic of what you were saying is true the fact that the deputies didn't know what the basis of the hol was then what is its relevance if your thinking is relevant then it must suggest that the mindset over there is any patient out automatically qualifies reveal assaultive high risk is that which you're suggesting i did not mean to imply that i just meant that it's just part of the totality of the circumstances that the deputies are operating on they're surrounded by medical staff that are there to protect them that inmates are not supposed to be roaming because they often are a danger to others a danger to themselves it's not safe it's not set up for for inmates to roam because there are medical offices there and and and an inmate roaming freely could you know run into a medical staff person could run into an office and so it's not set up for that situation so i only pointed out the fourteen day hold to show that the deputies their mindset is that they are dealing with inmates who are unpredictable often are considered a danger to themselves or danger to qualified because he wasn't responding to commands he was running fast he made sudden movements in he was unpredictable you had you know the question thank you very much we're rebuttal thank you  facto or something that existed within within him and that he would have died anyway or whether or not the reason why he died was because he suffered a blunt force trauma to the abdomen during the use of force on october fourth that is in fact the question of the case but that's not a question that should be decided by this court of the district court it's a question that should be decided by the jury which is the reason why the court reversed summary judgment i do also want to point out that in addition to all of the other discrepancies this case is is highly suspect aside from the discrepancies between the deputy's account of events and things that were in there and national statements or depositions as opposed to things that they added later to their declarations under the supervision of counsel in support of a motion to dismiss there are things about what happened here at that just doesn't make sense for example the medical evidence is clear that what happened to mr rose all as his manner of death was the result of water filling up into his lungs to the point that he couldn't breathe he suffered from acute renal failure he suffered from cerebral edema each of those things in and of themselves are f and when he was found he was found on the floor of his cell surrounded by a large puddle a few sees an unknown pool of water and according to dr o'halloran in his review of the medical records vomit in his mouth in his nose you know how is it possible that according to the county he was visited by a nurse an hour and a half before he passed away on october fifth and eleven or ten fifty nine pm or thereabouts and he was seen reported the standing eating a snack under no apparent distress and having complaints our position is that the documented evidence in the testimony of witnesses simply does not match up to the physical evidence and the forensic and medical