its current level so so we argue that governmental immunity should have been applied but at on a different standard so the answer to your question is no where we're arguing for remitting or not that it should be and that the jury didn't have  for the jury and here the jury obviously found that your client did cause these injuries and why why or why are we not bound by that well actually what the jury has to be done with respect to the opinion damages if you ask that question it may ask you to come up with the reasonable relationship between punitive damages and harms danger in this situation the jury determined there were no injuries and there were so i would point the court to the martin case and the riley the kurds cases and in both of those cases you have a nominal damage award you have the th circuit recognizing that in cases with these apply the rational relationship and the ratio analysis and then you still well you can exceed the single digit ratio you should not that there are certain guideposts then just are in riley after a bunch of other things it d was three dollars compensatory that you have the punitive rule d remitted down to one thousand is that correct that's correct but you say objected two hundred and fifty dollars nominal damage award and you have an award have to be mousing dollars i think in those cases that we see that are not governmental defendants are not excessive force cases there's much more emphasis on the ratio and in those cases the analysis i think it's important to look at the decision that was issued by this court back in january that kind of gave us kind of a heads up on things that in the d trial court defendant had filed a motion basically to stay the case and preclude execution on the judgment without the posting d of a bond the district court had denied that  and then they appealed it to this court and this court issued an opinion and january in order and january sex and i think that that orders mary important counsel yeah this judge bugs were that this officer beat the crap out of him and the jury finds excessive force and then they find no proximate injury now i know that the other side tried to say well he jumped a fence and ran through stuff but if his story is correct d you d know the officer inflicted d a lot of injuries and yet the jury doesn't find it and then they turn around and give you this great punitive so i'm not saying it who's right but the conflict between the d two to me is baffling so is there anything you can say from the trial level of about that well i i think it's you know that's i was the one of the unique things about the jury system but i think what happened here if i'm going to kind of just step back for a moment i think the jury heard a lot of things they heard by that in the trial transcripts they heard that you know as mr king this was flaying from the officer and the last issues but they also heard that after he lost his shoes he said you know i'm going to give up there's no sense running anymore an testified he lays on his stomach with his hands out all wrist had and he says specifically at the trial you know my hands are above my head to the sun in when he was asked why he did that he said well i want the officers to see i didn't have a weapon and then i was in a stunt and so the jury hears that they also hit mr kidd as testimony that once he's on the ground an obvious position of surrender defendant moran jumps on him and begins thrusting his name back they also hear that defendant moran choked him and strangle punched him in the head to the seven times punched him in the art is in he said we're going to teach you for running and he used an explicit it he said we're going to basically kick your pictures you have the raccoon eyes he's not going to get raccoon eyes from jumping over a fence and in fact that that question was asked during the trial did you get any of these black eyes and sore back things from jumping you know even if i wrote the jury whether you leave marks or not if you beat somebody up the way he said well i don't give him money for compensatory certainly you know you couldn't pay me ten thousand dollars that people be be that way so that's the oddity but you maybe there isn't any answer let's go to the other part which is the punitive so let's let's assume that despite the fact that it's d wholly  one dollar a nominal that some even your adversary seems to see that the sum punitive is because this d is pretty bad but do you have a good case for anything like two hundred thousand when you have essentially no compensatory as you have you cited a bunch of cases where d you know several one hundred thousand punitive have been d up well but those are with some significant compensatory as your adversaries cited a couple of cases i've looked at martin and riley that she mentioned and even out of circuit that leak case was d the most that i found any word of what would be your best case for a one dollar  dollars d getting six figures but i think one of the cases was romance he romance get out i think that was the see you know case where i believe initially she was given two hundred and why i think you know the district court in its opinion you know specifically pages eighty nine did intended a very good job at focusing on cases you know the pain versus jones case  the arguments are lifted from that you cannot focus just on that ratio and that's what the district court was whining to and that's what the cases point to in general that if we just focus on these ratios then basically we're always going to  the inherent d possibility of always dismantling a jury's verdict in the end nads you know that's the concern is that when we just look at the ratios d we're going to dismantle these verdicts all the time and where does that  promise you i'm not just looking at the ratios i'm looking at other cases that have also considered all three states dipoles nice and that's all you know and that's what i said even in the court's opinion and we looked at those you know the court noted even th cases but if the notice is if you if you don't cause any injuries to a person which is what the jury found for whether they should have or not of are you  likely to be liable ready ready for a couple of one hundred thousand dollars i don't think any of the cases do that's kind of what i was asking is look at the ones with d with one dollar or dollar the physical force which is that's where we have a whole lot of cases right of officers do do bad things and they get sued or they lose but usually they get a pretty good compensatory figures or even close to six figures two you know the black eye i mean you know that those are the things that the jury you know i don't know why the jury felt it did what it did we can't get him but on the flip side you know none of us can get in their heads but again the case is certainly seen just this specially when the district court did its analysis in its opinion and looked at these cases and say these are cases back in the ninety's late eighty's and then pounded for inflation it puts all those numbers out in the two hundred thousand dollars range but again i just you know what will the jury did here obviously was inconsistent but they did with  and i think this is a case maybe with grads or head out of the jury often compromises they trade you know the trading back and forth between the members of the jury and d i mean sometimes there is not really a rational explanation for it but it happens but we have to determine whether it's legally in error or whether it's reversible error which is different whether makes any sense i guess also the jury hearing i really don't see it in the sense but whether there is a legal basis to upset the verdict is another matter but the jury's can't that's unconstitutional right i think probably  go limited by the constitution sure but not necessarily by consistency that's all ok i see you're out of time do you have any you want to you want to wrap up your hear argument i would just rely on our bretheren your honor thank you for your again that the awards are fair reasonable predictable and proportionate in this situation approaches the limits of what we would deem consistent with constitutional constraints and so it is that the court's duty to actually bring meant to make sure that these awards are fair reasonable predictable and in proportionate doing to you and with the trial court it is said well we don't need to look at other nominal damage cases we just need to look at other excessive force cases that the level of harm or level of injury costs in particular and then is not part where carte blanche awarded everything that was requested by th