just so we can hear you ok ok thank you thank you i'm going to focus on the first issue on which is the reasonable doubt insufficient of the evidence issue and i'm obviously happy to answer any questions regarding the second and is crucial with the flame in the statement in this case is the time i'm so what you see when you watch the dash cam video and what you hear from deputies strong who was the one who is actually searching your car is that he was  searching in the front seat driver's seat area he had to stand on his knees on the pavement to see underneath the driver's seat the guy was found directly underneath the driver see according to deputies drop the backpack that contained the drugs was found behind the driver's seat in the back of the car so he was searching in the immediate area underneath the driver's seat and that front dash area where mr brown is standing at that time is on the opposite side of the car on the sidewalk so maybe you know five six feet away so he sees deputies strong go down on his knee is searching underneath he stands up and then he says to de back seat the weapon that we're talking about is found on the passenger side of the a passenger side of the driver's seat it's in there well underneath the driver's seat on the passenger directly underneath the driver's seat and actually happened you know stand on his knees in order to see it underneath there he also said that when they were taking the picture of where the gun was located they wouldn't be able to see the guy with outer to see be moved birth no your honor and when you watch that video again he's sitting there in the passenger seat for about ten minutes before he's asked to get out of the car and there's nothing that you can see obviously from the video and none of the three deputies who were present testified that there were any furtive movement knew whether or not any fingerprints had been taken from any of the contraband found in the car so they've done the backpack and any of the items found in the back there is no fingerprint evidence tying mr brown to any of those items and mackey's that there was no fingerprints evidence even though that if and he said he might find my fingerprints on the gun so in this situation i think that it's really crucial that the gun was not in plain view and accounts you can see it in exhibit thirteen that the gun was not very large it was not easy to see it wasn't sitting in stark relief against red carpeting as it was in people being there and that is not the case here it was very dark it was the middle of the night and i do not think you can infer that it was in plain view same goes for the backpack there's no indication a backpack was opened that any of the contents were visible there was no addition of ownership found within the backpack and  search of this car because she was going to be arrested i assume for dui and maybe going over the line or something and he was never offered the opportunity to drive one to see him no your honor there was no indication he situations going on and things like that but on it's also clear from the record that the jury never heard the audio for the baby out of self setting all that aside and i also think the jury only probably saw about twenty minutes of the video because that's all the state referenced in their closing argument all right now let's look at something you just said the car is only playing mr overton but driven by another person not an owner and she has a passenger there is a gun alternately found when the were directed if they have earlier on and he takes off and drugs are ultimately found there's testimony that persons involved in delivery situations don't often drive their own car because of forfeiture issues or other issues the the people who are employed don't usually have seven hundred seven hundred fifty dollars or so in smaller bills  in their possession when you're putting all of this information together and there is testimony from a person about what these could meet what he believes this needs why couldn't the jury infer there if he was doubt first of all they're not only was their exclusive control over the country and in the car because he was alone in the car for at least ten minutes but there was also it it also could possibly be joint it could be based me and you know to the court that he was in the car for ten minutes so he an exclusive control they argue did based upon his position based upon the cars are shit based upon curre because he knew there was something under the sea and like as he put it there he put the gun there and again we don't know why he ran we can't say this because he had a former possession which is not something that was in evidence at the time of the trial and there information shouldn't be discussed at this point i'm over discussing the evidence that was before the trial or a family were taken and we don't know what was not his mind we can any they say this is a very grown up and it could be if it is indeed us and it should be taken to well in a criminal situation i would say that case means it should be taken to if it is ambiguous to give to the defendant the benefit of you know they haven't been elected because people don't like lawyers and really benefit down off many sessions you know many sessions of the legislature didn't care what judges said about their language but with the supreme court says this is except where it's not and i said i would argue that when the only that it would do when we compiled stitches are written and they want to hear only one whatever follow know i was it does make some sense but then there's this other issue of the case is long gone there's a jurisdiction issue what how do we go back and grab it and i don't expect you to answer that but that would be a second issue that