substantive rules and i'm not sure there are many instances in which the state's characterization of his conviction is not necessarily respected by theodor law and nd the st one being whether the false arrest and nd when being the excessive force that went to trial on the excessive force that went to trial i don't understand and the question of whether the instruction was correct and whether the jury should have been told about the no apparently i don't understand why we're all four hundred and ten isn't the relative relevant one very well could be it was said in the brief i think the reason why the police were structured the way they were at least with respect to my perception in the briefing is that the district court plea the provides the basis for a conviction but also provides the basis for a state court to adjudicate a criminal proceeding and what that one thousand and sixteen no contest definition does is provide a framework for an agreement between cases you cannot rely on you being the planes or the defendant and accept the console matter you cannot rely on either the plea or the predicate factual issues or the predicate facts the  people through the criminal and also because of this case already been filed and he specifically raised the problem right so guyon ok so that being what it is he's he's been lying on the state statute is relying on representations of the district attorney and the court system with correct so under hack if there is a state court conviction and you are grieving that this nolo plea did in fact result in a conviction then the court has to consider whether the successful and eighty three claim would call into question the conviction which is what hecht prohibits so it seems that one thousand and sixteen in the context of hair is misplaced because court isn't looking at the conviction to use it in the the administrative case where they were revoking somebody so i think dental licenses you know great to stop the facts occurred the court is looking at the fact of a conviction not way to sixteen has been construed by the california courts of appeal in the cover supreme court is that it embraces not just the police but the conviction as well as the conviction itself is not admissible and can the california supreme court overrule the united states supreme court on an issue of whether what that is is addressed him exist in this context precisely because there is a conviction to understand that for the purposes of behavior this petition to sixteen has no application and i understand that but a smith understands that you can bring in excessive force can't charge even without running into half as long as the excessive force claim has some existence outside what ever it was that step being the court could have just said mr arrington has been convicted of a crime why do you have to even say that why couldn't you just expressed what the standard was for excessive force assuming the conviction measure excessive force within the context of resisting arrest really what it should have been was mr errington has been convicted of a crime because that's all i can all i can under a four thousand four hundred and ten tell you other than that the standard analysis for excessive force applies irrespective of whether or not he was resisting arrest because it's for the jury to make the fact that terminations based on what kind of pilot it is the problem is that they have to back out that isn't the point but i thought for heck was about false arrests in the sense that he said i was wrongly arrested because i wasn't actually didn't do was what i was convicted of so so my understanding of the  was that he was arrested and held for a prolonged period of time and then he sued for that prolonged period that he was held for and the undermining the underlying argument was that the arrest was incorrect that was my understanding in the court says you can't you know we have e hack has been expanded into state tort claims but for the purposes of this case it seems like i mean it would seem to me that you could just have a conviction and that conviction could be announced to the jury he has been convicted of a crime right and or and for the of dismissing all the false arrest false or best claims that issue is actually no longer relevant to anything that's before the jury because the only thing for the jury now is excessive use of force and what is throughout this is the problem something is relevant in order to get them focused on the fact that not if he hadn't done anything that any amount of force would have been excessive so there has to be some cabin ing of what force they're supposed to be focusing on well so presumably the instructions with respect to police use of force that exist independent of a conviction would be put supplied to the jury and the jury would be happening and that rule is if you haven't done anything they can't use any forest therefore there has to be some way and for the jury to understand that that's not the circumstance there are lots of use of force cases that involve something sort of an ultimate conviction for  instance because of the hack bar it's not supposed to be met with play do what mr arrington is trying to do is use it as a sword instead of a shield and since one of the elements for a false arrest or malicious prosecution false also but the plea was in minute well i think that the conviction for the one hundred and forty eight has to come in because part of the elements of the excessive force claim are whether the officers used reasonable force and well i don't know why it has to come in but eighty three case and i think there are good and nobody and the prosecutor didn't suggest otherwise and i think that was a mistake by the court i think is a mix stick by the prosecutor because that's not the that state court please which is assumed that there would be no immigration consequences when there were later were immigration consequences that was a due process violation so this guy was told specifically he was i mean he said i am not going to do this because i'm a civil case and the judge show no problem because it's not going to be able to come in yourself a case right and i remember reading that thinking necessarily right and wrong and and if there was so one necessarily in that the the another it if there is a possible excessive force claim then and one necessarily invalidate the conviction for there to be found excessive force the jury would have nothing to say about might happen to the conviction right but they have to put it in the sense that they have to know about the one hundred and forty eight because if you just say if he's just allo say there was excessive force i did absolutely nothing that and a jury believe that and we weren't allowed to explain why there was probably called while  one federal role head can you have another federal role the four hundred and ten rule and the question is how do we reconcile them now if you were talking about the california one thousand and sixteen i say well the federal rule wins the federal wins but this isn't this is to federal principles and the question is what do we do with them unfortunately i didn't notice with your honor's i did not focus on the fourteen issue at all so i force federal constitutional claim is why does the jury have to worry about whether the arrest was lawful or not lawful as opposed to why can you just say that any force that was used in excess of that it is reasonable reasonably arrest is the force that they should be focusing on because they need to know that their officers were lawfully present performing his duties why do they need to know i'm sorry and why why can't they why isn't the fed the instruction  just laid out completely sufficient for the jury to be able to figure out what excessive force they should be worrying about when i see the   the federal rule says you can't do i mean i would argue in this case and i would welcome the opportunity for the issue but i would still argue that in this case at least it was it was either harmless  prejudice because that's possible which is why perhaps we should have everything because they're not told because part of the part of the definition of whether the force used was reasonable whether he was actively resisting arrest or tempted to invade arrest by the flight there was one of the elements in this in the th circuit model jury instructions if you look at the supplemental excerpt of record of one to page one hundred and twenty three resisting that he was you know that he was not phone orders that he did throw down the officer i mean so i think in this case it would have made a difference and they don't surprised by that because that seems prejudicial that seems as if it opens the opportunity for the jurors to reach all sorts of conclusions without sufficient information as opposed to being instructed that he entered in a no contest or nolo plea which leaves the opportunity for counsel to explain what that means and explain the circumstances and that he had already served a significant amount of time and that you know he would be highly motivated to take this plea and then the jury should disregard you know he could make arguments once he had that information before the jury that would seem to be foreclosed by just being told that he was convicted of something which would leave the jurors to wonder what was it could be something much worse than resisting arrest so i i'm not sure what the instruction should have been very take issue with the notion that the instruction should have been he committed a crime and instruction that is there that's been provided to us and the record is several paragraphs long and gives accurate information to the jurors and tells them they can find there was excessive force the either before or after the arrest and all the things  for let's say he was arrested for murder but when he was arrested he absolutely had no i didn't resist they said you were we want to arrest you for murder and all he did was you know put his hands behind his back raise and so they let you that that does play into whether to a certain extent whether the force is reasonable or not reasonable i don't think an argument to go back to judge resigns point where he explains the circumstances in the nolo pretty would be challenging the conviction not suggesting he could say that the jury should find that he didn't do it or he should challenge the conviction but it would at least give him the opportunity to explain the circumstances which would be far less prejudicial than leaving the jurors to wonder what on earth with he convicted of they they would know if it was a trial or you know what the circumstances were what the crime was right  so that was the point of suggestion for an alternative instruction and i don't know what what other instruction should have been given i mean i think the only other instruction that would have been given really because the rest of the unstructured for the battery in excessive force claims are straight out of the th circuit model jury instructions and straight out of the california case instructions which are the california jury instructions from the state law claims so he's really just talking about taking away the sentence that he was convicted for the one hundred and forty years and it then the judge explains that because of that one forty eight they are entitled to use reasonable force which is a correct statement of the law and he was still allowed to go to his it was a lot because excessive force claim to the jury they had two is correct that it is changed a lot since the case was tried but i think the bottom line is that the case is now it with the state of where they are at now is that if you have a claim for excessive force that's sufficient for a ban you don't need something additional separate in addition to whatever the force is used and so i think in this case the fact that the been acted not go to the jury because the should the jury understand the defense's position that this is all harmless error because the jury made a set of findings in favor of the police officers but the set of findings that it made in favor of the police officers were with respect to the issues that the jury was instructed on but the and that's the jury was presented to very different versions of the events so mr errington claimed he was essentially doing nothing and i think the officers tried to run him over with the police vehicle ten vehicles came up he said th ey called him names he said i'm excuse me sir i'm hand i'm disabled and he did nothing he actually did nothing did never touch the officer who was injured you know none of this happened the officers presented a completely different account of how they encountered him and that he threw one officer to the ground who had his back was fractured in that when he was struck with the baton it was you know it was all an accident you know except for two wildly divergent tales of the events and if the jurors apparently accepted the officer's account because they didn't find excessive force why would it have made any difference if they were considering a banner claim because there's been a claim is with the change in the law is that an excessive force claim would be sufficient but he lost his excessive force let him attempted excessive force claim would also be attempted excessive force and so when you almost that somebody was a squad car and you're on a bicycle and that's that's a carve out of the facts of this case that we're not really at issue because what was really at issue was what happened after