point one we argued that the magistrate abused her discretion in allowing the introduction of evidence about the defendant's impressions about drug and other crime problems in the area where mr warren was arrested and this created undue prejudice or passion in favor of the defendant officers which played on the sympathy of the jury we argued that this ruling was arbitrary and irrational and it had absolutely no relevance to the crime for which mr war was arrested for which was just why the judge the judge gave a limiting strops and didn't why was why wasn't that a limited limitation adequate well the problems with their your honor is that the limitation was not adequate officers about what they knew of the association of criminal activity and drug at tivoli in this plot but not to permit mr ashton's suggest that mr warren was involved in that activity the limited instruction did not provide any use whatsoever because the damage was done once mr ass was allowed to question his officers about the character of this neighborhood it all became about the character of the neighborhood well th of the state when the judge made the ruling wasn't there bill a fall for rest claim and then for trial there was there was and there and the that's the one issue would be whether there was probable cause point is what has to be looked at and at that point the jury the white why isn't if you think that it's so whichever disbursal order we're talking about isn't the real them for the dispersal order relevant to the  wheelchair was pushed over so the public care element was totally lacking and the crowds did not well that would be that may be what the jury found at the end but the question here is what ever them would the obscenities ok so the basis of the disorderly conduct charge was yelling obscenities and then you got to look at people the baker to decide whether the public care elements are there which they yes yes because the evidence show that it was a defendant liberty or who intentionally pushed a wheelchair over and that caused mr wars a left side of his head and body to slam down to the sidewalk and then it was out there a lot of other spencer ashe for the appellee s st off i'd like to say that this case represents the culmination of seven years of litigation for the courts review are over two hundred have not personally been involved in a case more heavily litigated and more meticulously scrutinized in this particular case and i give the trial court a lot of credit for the that i have some great regret about because i do immensely respect the truck when the work that they put into this case seven witnesses expert witnesses recall a total of sixteen witnesses were present at all times during this trial mr war was positioned two feet from the jury box everything was put in everything was heard judge paysan was a gatekeeper even when mr burke which seem cannot be located within a range of permissible decisions that clearly is not here on his record in terms of the jury's findings of fact an alternate verdict he would have to show and i quote the language of united states we sanchez that those evidentiary findings were patently incredible the five physical realities again those those facts are not present on his record so unless the court has questions my brief is pretty exhaustive so as i just place a ruling i'll stop i think it was completely unnecessary and my regard for the court would not have permitted me to do anything intentionally as an as a as a matter of law that you can sanction before i've not your honor and this is this is very is very surprising to me in this context it happens thanks i was sanctioned by in another judge in western district well after this case regarding  very protracted document discovery issue that involved change years of discovery of personnel records during the pendency of the litigation regarding whether fifty eight dollars would apply so that was very contentious and we are complying with that order the judge has an ultimate rule what he what he will do with this but the nature of these cases your honor is you know we deal with personnel issues regarding police officers you know not let's not get away from this time that i was presenting on cross examination against an expert witness and there were not numerous reports that want to table dozens of them and i was only from this particular offense of note your honor isn't about my notes aside i was really chair i was the only person from my office representing my clients and i had or clients hundreds of documents as i put that document to side of the end of each day or at the end of each break session i would put kind of get all my documents together and try to scuttle back and forth to my office or to the break room and the document inadvertently because of the small size of the fact that was on the side ledger makes the i'm focusing on the main body of  document embarrassing me with that document back on and i will tell you this and i'm not saying this is a form flattery i really honor judge pace and i know the work that she does and i was horrified at that times mr war had been arrested so i misinterpreted i said you previously testified that mr war has gone to jail objection your honor oh arrested have not appealed the judge's ruling because i respect her interpretation of ruling in her work in this case i respectfully disagree with her assessment that my action was intentional i have practiced for sixteen years and nothing like this has ever happened i have the trust of my colleagues i represent police officers and st responders this is a st for me this is the biggest case our office has tried in the last thirty years again i tried it by myself in the end of inflow litigation i did make some mistakes and i own those and again i am personally bears that i made any of these and it was truly a learning experience but the judge rightly pointed out that these mistakes did not affect the overall character of t fun it is not every day you say the least that you have before us a case in which a representative of a government agency a lawyer for a government agency has been personally sanctioned by a judge five years and i was disregard federal district court judge before i sit where i sat and we see these ninety three cases you know not with some with with some frequency and i got to say i i just have never seen a wreck heard of a trial in in this circuit that are reflects what i saw when i was really reading these briefs and studying the record i mean it was just it was mayhem it was just a in some respects a free for all this is not who we are this is not what what the traditions of th with with with tar and feathers on to try to defend myself but i do want to say and i think it's important for the record saying and i think i commend personally i've been involved in a lot of trials in state court in federal court i commend the job of judge pace and did  it was i was frankly disagree judge parker it was not mayhem it was very well organized very well run there were a lot of moving parts there was a gallery full of dozens and dozens of people there are a lot of considerations to make respect to my with respect to my office we have worked very very closely together on its case in a collaborative way for seven years just this case represents half of my legal career and my office trusted me to to represent four clients in one of the most highly publicized cases in the region and decades and i did my very best i fell short on some aspects  honor with regard to mr ass's argument she she referenced the aggressive tone of his brief well it was an aggressive tone at the trials well i think the his brief is very reflect of how she acted during the trial itself the trial was complete mayhem ok i've never had a trial like that the only other trial i had was the judy vs got show case where the judge did  disqualify the defense attorney from retrying the case at the retrial so judge pacing it's my position that judge pacing could not keep control over the demeanor of the trial to mr ashes misconduct fashions we will go with that remedy ok i wanted to try to preserve the liability verdict that we had against obvious your liberty or i wanted to preserve that along with the punitive damages finding where the jury awarded zero dollars i wanted to preserve will gladly take that but the bottom line here is benny war and i know where they were deprived of a remedy many wars deprived of a remedy for violation of civil rights you know that it was you know she didn't get a fair shake