that's not a soundbite that's just recorded mr carter committed to aggravated from a sexual abuse against fourteen year old for improper sexual touching he also committed an aggravated criminal sexual abuse against fifteen year old or not showing of the respondent is dangerous because he suffers from a mental disorder that makes it substantially probable that he will engage in acts of sexual violence which at this point to her are made a comment to the that was relayed to the court the record shows that there was a discussion held mr road stated he wanted to know whether the herder was dangerous enough to kill one of the children one of the kids  further stated that he was wondering if he was capable of hurting or killing them or something like that he stated if it were dangerous is what prompted him to think of this term after might obtain their names and addresses and they wanted to know if his notes would be destroyed and they stated they were concerned that after he got out he would be coming to their addresses and they were concerned about their safety fortson illinois tried to deal with the issue of juror bias on there's no real case on point that i was able to find one that i did want to note which is in my brief as people versus terry i'm to an illinois supreme game and how they were concerned about that possibly the safety of the jurors after the trial and he felt that that was sufficient or just a fine new trial i think that's similar in this case in that we have a appear that's going to expressed  concern about the dangers of this responding not just to the children which is what the specific question was but further down the road at the end of the child or their individual selves were they going to be found out of the trial and now in that case was a witness knowing about their address and binding to jurors after the trial that sure was excused over the facts their case are different because that was a death penalty cases and it was the death penalty phase and the jurors stated specifically that he would not or he had already determined the death penalty was appropriate so the jury virtually the judge excuse that juror but that's at least a juror that had that issue of the names and addresses and he was excuse or no i don't think that's that's the number one time of which he exercised discretion and in retrospect just itself that's probably a relatively safe thing for him to have done from the twenty's into the health of you however when you look at the issue that and i think it's a call that this court is probably not going to may but that's our request is to review it from the point of view of the secondary concerns that were raised by the jurors and at that point in time recognizing how significant the fear factor was to that jury and i think that the facts of this case if you look at the jury evidence that was presented ensure there was nothing presented that presented this responded as monster or someone who committed multiple acts against individuals that were considered violent crimes wasn't that the question of new jersey must be the bill of how do we why or how we call this guy to be read that this individual juror was waiting for the state present evidence to prove that you tried to hurt someone i think it presents a outside of the evidence concept of part of the juror that more sense themselves th bode well he said what was your what other counsel says publish your question for the bailiff new jersey says well it wasn't to see if you was dangerous and i couldn't figure out why no one said anything if he was capable of like you much more likely than not we don't agree with that we think that the illinois law should be different counts and because illinois has definition or substantially probable not peers in the knowledge of language that's in the statu expressed concerns of go beyond the evidence and relate to their decision making for reasons extraneous to the banks and asked for a new trial we also asked that the court adopt the standard for the jury instructions make a showing that a juror has some sort of fixed opinion and here jurors opinion was not fixed and we know that because he didn't walk into the courtroom and say i have an opinion he came into the courtroom and asked questions and as the course pointed out it's not even clear whether that question would tend bias him in favor of course on that were in favor of the state he asked this question in the middle of the state's expert testimony and there is something that you wanted to know that he had not yet been told essentially by asking whether that response was danger enough dangerous enough to kill someone which is not a requirement for the s v p act he was sort of trying to act his own element and the court corrected him by instructing him that the court would be doing all the instructions on the law and that gerard was not form an opinion until after he had heard all the evidence and gerard stated repeatedly that he would be able to do that at best this is an ambiguous indication of what gerard was thinking and in the situation where girard had been repeatedly questioned by both parties and stated that he could be fair he can't have been use of the judge's discretion to refuse to dismiss him at that point now related should your are is the question of the jury's post verdict questions to the bailiff about whether the respondent had their addresses and responde and when the jurors asked the addresses there's no indication that gerard was one of those jurors so the fact that these two things happen in the same trial don't really have to tell or ask for the question of the post verdict questions again it's not enough to say that there's a suspicion of bias you have to show that juries have some sort of fixed opinion in this case you would have to show that the jurors fear of the respondent led them to render a verdict that he was a sexually violent person when otherwise they would not have done so and it's not  from the jurors questions that the fear of the respondent actually affected their perfect act seems more likely as the trial court found from dealing with the situation at the time that it was the rendering of the verdict that then made them think that possibly they could have some fear of the respondent having their addresses the reason that there is no information in the record about what exactly the jurors were thinking there is because nobody asked the jurors those questions at the time when the court and the parties were having this discussion the jurors were still in the courthouse and we know that because the judge after having this discussion tells the bailiff go tell the jurors that they shouldn't worry about this if anyone really wanted to know what the jurors were thinking and whether a fear of the respondent caused them to render a verdict that he was nessie he when they wouldn't have otherwise the  were right there for the asking even in the argument on post trial motion no one suggested that the jurors be brought in asking these questions or had any information indicating that the verdict was in any way acted i finally asked you the jury instruction issue this of stanley probable definition has been a fund to buy both the first district and bailey and in the hayes case which i believe is from the second district certainly it's not an abuse of the trial court's discretion to follow the president from the appellate distress but we