in two thousand and eight the people filed a motion for an updated department of corrections evaluation defense counsel objected to that motion there was a hearing ultimately judge foreman granted the say i evaluated him and have testified the evaluation is limited to just our records reveal in this circumstance what this is also what ultimately is happening here though is if they have this other evaluator come you're correct mr brown did not cooperate with dr with either dr quackenbush or dr baf and at the time of the hearing schedule and because of the delay  we have an unusual situation but at the time of the scheduling of this hearing the petitioner this state was in time to present testimony from both the idea see evaluator who was d difficult time coming to a conclusion in this case and one of the things that struck struck me after reading the record was that it could have been one of those situations where they were in the back and they found well we've got three people out here that  knew his record specifically and they only have the one and it's you know it's three doctors are telling me i might develop cancer in three years if i don't take this pill that's going to strike fear in me as opposed to one saying it's not going to happen and that's happened the jurors decide on a note saying that they they could not come to a conclusion in this case and i think ultimately it would have come down to the experts opinions in this case and the fact that the state was allowed to have essentially three yesterday and they're thinking he could have been thinking just as easily claim no one standard for twenty years how do we know what he's going to do and you believe it has nothing could have had nothing to do with how many experts testified it could have been strictly to i would assume with the outside world some to speak so the opportunities certainly was diminish i agree with you that the opportunity was diminished or at least changed however there are females that work in our part of the corrections and this you have to remember that mr brown was also in the d h s s facility or rushville for approximately eight years where he was working in the laundry he was working in the commissary he was doing he had an offsite job which was the laundry where is so he had been offsides he had he had no issues other than the one that i just mentioned to justice hutchinson and let me just say this about the other than their prediction of the future risk they had no specific instances that they could point to it in the past twenty years rather than the one where they could even have ensured by that is that mr brown was suffering from an tendencies he felt he did not have enough evidence to earth information to make the full on antisocial disorder and is there some indication that that those disorders where i didn't hear them well they are two different ones that th even though he had gone through the key is that most of their testimony we've gone through a lot of programs anger management programs and things of that nature he testified that he went through some anger management programs wasn't something like i've done everything that they offered disadvantage he had no way of countering the state's expert witnesses because he had refused to participate in the city evaluations here pretty much the opposite happened response expert dr those results had examined respondent multiple times and he was allowed to did have an informal conversation with mr brown i believe it was for two thousand nine hundred ten and she stated he refused to sign the consent form but that he talked to me anyway they did have a conversation so really that i don't even think that the current had any difficulty coming to a decision on the record indicates that what the jury sent out a note saying that they couldn't agree with seven fifteen pm and the coroner go to bed at that point to deliberate had been deliberating for only two hours s similar and it seems that they came to him for it at some point during that evening so the record doesn't reflect that this was the sort of case where the jury had gone back and forth for multiple days and was simply one able to come to a decision so therefore the record defendant suffers from a medical or mental condition must then mental condition relate back to the thing he was convicted of a sexually violent crime in other words instruct that the mental disorder has to be necessarily related to the sexually violent offenses so i definitely see any social personality disorder which i would know both the state experts and respondents own expert also diagnosed him with could qualify as  another issue is the fact that although the respondent was according to the only sex offender treatment during his parole back in the late eighty's he never completed it he still hasn't completed that even and d h asking has refused to participate