plaintiffs raised in their opening brief the primary issue which we strongly urge requires a reversal concerns the jury instructions and the way the jury instruction on deliberate indifference was argued to the jury by defense counsel and the way that the district judge says overruled the prompt objection to that instruction and allowed the jury to find in favor of the defendants because the plaintiffs adot proves that the defendants intentionally wanted fifty thousand prisoners the property was still being held that the jail to lose their property was flaxman do i understand correctly that this is not actually an instruction issue because the parties agreed on the substantive jury instructions this is really a closing argument yes the instruction issues about t clearly wrong when it was argued that the instruction required subjective that face and the judge overruled the prompt objection to that the other there was another objection to the defense closing argument the defense said that the plaintiffs you can't fight for the plaintiffs fish they didn't bring in three hundred thousand prisoners pacifica left their property and we objected to that the judge sustained that objection and gave a curative instruction on starbird and made it very hard impossible for us to win the other issues that we raised in the brief are issues that will come up again if as we argue  have at the law of the case doesn't prohibit us more but with that that doesn't have to be a third trial if the judge as i would expect would follow the seven circuits decision and ocular forth them instruction  of the pieces of evidence of deliberate indifference was the sheriff's confusing instructions to former prisoners about how to get their property back when the sheriff couldn't find it the sheriff would give them a form which is in the record saying go sue the cook county department of corrections in pro se court and that way you can get compensation when prisoners would go to proceed court which is actually the municipal of the small sometimes the pro se prisoner would get that right sometimes the pro se prison and we get that wrong in one case called black versus dart the procedure prisoner got it right but then the share of shit well you can't sue us because we have  we thought was evidence of deliberate indifference and the jury heard about that from one class member but should have received an instruction from the court saying this is the law you can't go to state court to get compensation and the sh giving people instructions to go to state court is confusing the other issue which should be explored before a new trial is about this missing database exhibit forty five which is a video instructions i didn't know how to do that i mean that the defense lawyer made a representation you have to show harm to jeff if the judge said overruled and these the judge the judge instructed the street after that's my recollection and you know i this is this is problematic when when people started trying to paraphrase the written instructions  but the judge also gave the standard instruction didn't she you know since the instructions are what i tell you they are rather than what the lawyers tell you that are that's correct she also said that during the response to one of my objection and she also sustained  number of your objection as to other attempts to paraphrase instructions that's correct so what's you know if you say that you your brief seem to indicate that the judge got me instructions wrong but that's not what's going on here the question is whether a mistaken paraphrase in in closing argument requires a new trial and that's pretty unusual that's not what's special about this case these prisoners to lose their property you know the key language seemed to be the difference if i got this right between purposely and conscious disregard so rain purposes well that then it goes aren't the closing argument continued after that with they need to prove to you that the sheriff's office purposely said consciously said you know we're not going to let this pattern of this standard people people not getting their stuff back we're going to let these hundreds of thousands of people just not get their stuff that was argument that was encouraged or allowed this the district judge said it was ok to talk about they purposely took no action this isn't a case about negligence but of the instruction referred to conscious disregard that final closing argument refers to purposely what's the difference between the two the way it was argued is that it was transform into intentionally disregarded not consciously disregard a potentially what it hard to be course to cause these prisoners that that's the way i think the jury saw it the way it was argued in your theory was less than intentional harm but just that indifference to know there's a problem and not to do anything about it and we certainly had evidence that they knew it was a problem evidence that they didn't do anything about it and that that's what we think conscious me in on the pemba our instruction issue once the district judge settled those final instructions where did you object to the refusal to give that instruction i had just did i did not was clear with opposition was it was clear we asked to quell there's a lot of it looked to me like there's a lot of give and take in the in the instruction discussions there's certainly an argument there at the instruction given about a policy making official knowing of the pattern and allowing it to continue which it was agreed you sufficient to cover that point and what i didn't see is an objection registered once the hawkins case the judge had made rulings in other summary judgment order which this court said that made it not feasible for somebody to object to after the plaintiff to object letter in closing argument and there was no objection raised in the mr power thank you but it please the court when individuals come into the custody of cook county jail they often arrive in street clothes or have in their possession jewelry money cell phones or other items that could be case is about whoever is the return of that property when detainees are convicted and sent to the illinois department of corrections or released to return to the public defendants do not deny that from two thousand and five to two thousand and thirteen many pieces of property were not return detainees however plaintiffs have failed to establish at trial that property was in fact lost or misplaced by the county jail as opposed to the defendants as to detainees abandoning that property more importantly though during that time approximately seven hundred eighty thousand individuals passed through cook county jail during that time the sheriff's offices processes of volved from paper system with receipts to upgrade computer systems to a state of the are conveyor belt system to manage detainee property the sheriff's office held weekly accountability meetings hired outside vendors had internal and external audits centralized their property procedures as spent one point four million dollars on a conveyor belt system that parties agreed that plaintiffs had to prove deliberate indifference by the sheriff's office and place agreed with and helped craft that deliberate instruction deliberate indifference instruction that was given to the jury so with agreed instructions  did the county's lawyer keep trying to spin them in closing argument i rephrasing them putting them putting them up on the power point and then rephrasing them drawing objections most of which were sustained this one particular one was not i don't know if i can speak to the thought process of that but i'm surprised the district judge didn't shut down the closing argument well again as as your honor noted there were objections that were were made and  case may be and again i think this goes to the point that you brought up earlier that this case is not about improper instructions but statements during all that it's about it's about lawyers who agree on instructions agree with the judge on the instructions and then try to spin them constantly and your honor to the extent that there was spin that was kind of within the normal bounds of closing argument trying to explain the jury instructions to the jury a ins differences struck again look at the court repeatedly warned the jury throughout the course of trial that arguments are not evidence and that the judge will instruct them on the law the judge did instruct them on the law  with instructions that were not object to juries are presumed to follow the instructions given to them as interpreted by the lawyers as given to them by the judge your honor and again this is this is a  defendants response brief goes into this with this fourth amendment issue and think this reply brief does not counter the arguments made by defendants regarding the fourth amendment issue and indeed on page nine of my just reply br began seem to revert to the argument that it is the fourth man a case rather than a fourteenth amendment case there's simply no search and seizure going on here as to the power issue or deals with entity the liability the definition of the entity and again in the jury instructions that were agreed to the definition of the defendant was the office of the sheriff which would encompass any of those policymaking officials that was what was the factual rebuttal to that point from from the defendants to the to the to the evidence that the sheriff's office was saying in essence go down this blind alley it compensated  you know i don't know if there was a factual rebuttal to that specific that's what was doing what the what the department was doing i would have to go back and look at the record but i believe at the time that was what the form stated your are so the sheriff was directing people whose property had been lost to the terms of thousands of them to go down a blind alley and waste their time well you're out for the first step would be to come to cook county jail try to make a claim with cook county jail there's evidence in the record that most bags were found when people came and tried to collect it and it was it was a small number of circumstances where people came to claim their property cook county jail and the jail could not immediately or within short found and again this is just burden to to quantify the number of bags and just let me go back to my original question about the plaintiff's point that the sheriff's department was directing people whose property was lost to go to a nonexistent court where they with with incorrectly designated court and if they managed to find their way there would be met with county lawyers arguing immunity well you're out of the is that what was that's correct or i believe the that was filing a suit i don't believe there are directions on what kind of claim to bring so if they couldn't figure out the difference between a damages claim and a reply then claim and that that's the of the remedy that you were offering well that the remedy was to first come back to cook county jail and we're assuming that didn't work and and again in order to have a  in order to get to the issue of whether or not there's an adequate remedy at law you first have to look at whether or not there was a constitutional violation and again going back to the analysis and the jury verdict that there was no deliberate indifference in this case that the steps of the county jail was making cumin sure detainees got their property in the first instance met that there was no deliberate indifference there was no constitutional violation there but there was a during this during the pendency of the lawsuit i believe it would have been ok so we have evidence that a database existed during the pendency of the lawsuit and we have counsel from the county reporting two opposing counsel into the court yet no longer exists yes and going back to the first part of that while there was there were references to the existence of a database but no one who actually created the database or witness the database testified to it or or referenced it there are we don't know what those statements were in that video  regarding what they were talking about when it came to those statements and again there's no evidence that anything was destroyed in bad faith and again as to the standard to apply here it's an abuse of discretion standard as to the sheriff just asked for a firm and by stating that there is no evidence that anything was destroyed in bad face if the jury made the same conclusion and that's what the sheriff urged to the jury in closing argument they were applying a subjective standard they were saying well there's no bad faith there's negligence there's  waste fraud and abuse but there's no bad faith nobody wanted these fifty thousand prisoners whose better be under the supreme court's holding in daniel's intentional misconduct as an element of anything process clear so men claim but he's held that the due process of violation of the due process clause requires someone to have that intent and as i understand it you're arguing there can be a violation of the due process clause even though nobody that intent that's correct that's can't inverses that's awfully hard to reconcile with the supreme court i would respectfully request the court to make that position clear and maybe we c a clarified that's really a reason why the fourth amendment is so important in this kind of case this the sheriff is seizing the property exercising the fourth amendment and they should have a duty to us the fourth minute standard is subjective but i gather you're conceding based that's what's giving me trouble here like you can't make the due process clause just a clone of the fourth amendment daniel said over with i don't think daniels was talking about and to the liability i think city of canton was i think if we go  case is taken under advi