you go for it when you're ready ramifications and circumstances then it would never have met reasonable for the trial court to declare the mistrial the third mistrial was appropriate is considered by the facts of the case the trial court's abuses discretion simply by protection against double jeopardy includes the right to be tried before a particular jury that right however is not unfettered no party has a great night of the state nor the defendant has a right to present a case to a biased here by the time that you're actually declared the mistrial that jury was on questionably tainted we cannot just look at all now capable if you look at just what happened when the judge  argue would not be grounds for a mistrial however if you look at the entire case and as dollar it says we need to look at the facts of the particular case and in this case there was a pervasive pattern of not only disregarding at that point there was a discussion with the judge and the judge said you can't bring in the second answer the prosecutor said this isn't admissible at trial and the judge agreed now to be extent that the judge believed that the prohibition was given a lot of leeway at one point before this trial was declared she asked the officer she asked about the following that she asked about the p p t and that at one point she said why did you offer me that unauthorized exam the jury heard that would have still been stuck with what she said before well the thing would be stuck with that during cross examination if she chose to go on with the kids and she the state would be stuck with her direct during cross examination they would be limited to those questions regarding whatever she w officer perjured himself when he was and when he did not address the p b t during the direct he could not have done that she had no intention it is clear from the record and so i disagree with anything suggestion that we don't know what her theory was it is clear that if she said numerous times that the officer was lying and then he was perjuring himself by not talking about the p v t she wasn't trying to introduce results contemplated by the s discretion that judge arguably was responding to what was occurring at the time it was occurring which was during the state's case and she but if you're honest find that his comments do extent that the judge believed that to be accurate that's not where he's moving this based on his ruling was based on the fact that well it's not immediate may not be admissible later but it certainly  anything prior to this exchange when he said i have no alternative but to grant him where there was some consideration anyway to prevent her from what you perceive to be her attempt to impeach him rather than to get the that so what's the prosecutor sat back and then defendant i don't recall exactly what harvey meant was i know she objected obviously to the motion for mistrial but the and there's been a ruling you cannot introduce acts wooden shoe admonish you witnesses you don't you cannot go here would also have been incompetent to say to every police officer if you've given a p b t you cannot talk about that in the state's case cheap and yet this officer believes that amount of insurance i didn't i mean for that i don't know if it's an obligation i pray i honestly don't know if it's an obligation i believe it should be done obviously through witness preparation here the officer what did you do what do you do next she had she had asked him many questions before that and he had given where i thought i would i would go so far as saying every possible answer he gave was that he answers t twice and then she asked about an authorized exam and then the court stopped the officer from answering