in opening statements and closing arguments second for the truck or air and bringing the jury into the courtroom to watch a squad car video of the incident in this case in the presence of the parties the judge in a court reporter and third that in this case well come on the air that occurred but the procedure in this case was there and there are there are multiple problems  you could depend on the circumstances and what's in the video and in this case the trial judge determined that implicitly that was in the video would be appropriate and not do if i just saw there are cases where it does not meet that standard they played the video once through the prosecutor asked was that law off i just responded well you know how does they talk over one another but where you can make of that is available for you with the prosecutor was that was prosecutor was given the control the video and just play it through twice according to the judge's orders and during the deliberation phase they got the audio was apparently played at that time however that limited juror that process i'm just going straight through it twice comment that discourages the jury from viewing a certain way but the prosecutor's presence and the presence of the parties certainly were know that no one no one else is supposed to be participating but we have for for whatever reason now we have the state yeah everybody's in this room participating in the showing of this video  the state and the judge and that seems to be a lot of interplay between them and when the the state says this is loud enough and the judge responds well you know how it is they talk over one another but whatever you can make of it is available for you know ok we'll play it one more time and then the judge says it completed two showings of this a return to the jury room we have your lunch and was even you back there doesn't seem to have been any opportunity for the former and or someone else of the representative of that jury to say state with the obvious acquiescence of defense counsel in this case to determine how they view that with news question of the trial judge to watch the procedure  question now is the video if you want to see it again there's nothing prohibiting the judge to say ok can't waste any more questions so if the jury wanted to see if you can there's nothing there's nothing stopping them from doing so or how often they can look at it but here we have a situation let's really be sensible about something about this why did they ask to see the tape yeah clearly because somebody says specific the instruct the jury that they could talk about the video afterwards when they got back from the journey and that wasn't a problem for the majority of the court actual possession and so he thought he wouldn't have grown to trial if he had known he could be convicted of constructive possession which brings me to a point that if you can put it is indication is that he's pleading guilty that it is there to follow this procedure but its review for presidential impact is what the majority has sat and a couple cases and said there was no prejudice in those cases so that's different that's an it's not there it is there the remain quiet during the deliberation and judge made a mistake by making the destruction that jury could have thought inhibited their villages gusen that when they went back later on in this case there was no instruction and that he had already come around the car and had that was basically looking straight into the passenger compartment of the vehicle like the other officer and had my client got clocked at that time the video should clearly shows that he was not in that at that point and that's when he i saw him looking into that at it's implied in that testimony that he was around a car had been a fan at gun point and he was looking straight at the passenger compartment and that's how you can see in recent under the vehicle the video and possibly another