at the hearing i climb mr serrano said i would not think of hitting a white officer do you think i would do something so stupid especially when i'm in a wheelchair francis's response i don't know how black people think and i'll never know it what you might that would then that we would have an issue but for lieutenant francis bickering officer charged on in a way that impugn the potential that there is some underlying reason that familiar with the problem of prison gangs and the supreme court has told us in analyzing due process violations that we must be respectful of the needs of the institution to maintain security and discipline while to do is on fact finding her talk to other people which incidentally is something on its face that one would wonder and beginning of the stir comes in to interview these people and some of what they had to communicate was basically two sentences  that doesn't exist here in which case it might exist if there is a prison regulation on which the officer could realize that permits him to conduct a hearing without calling live witnesses simply reviewing the investigative reports and not not only from the standpoint of qualified immunity but in the in the context of a settled environment prison and order if you have a a procedure a violation you have to show that the substance of the things with you later is putting him in the hall without his wheelchair and without facilities to get along in that in that segregated situation far as segregated from the rest of the christian community whether was imposed in typical and significant violation for assaulting a staff member once he makes that factual determination that the inmate is guilty of that of france which he knows is punishable by up to what is it a year in the special housing unit in this particular one hundred fifty thousand but it can be up to a year i believe so ok and you're suggesting that because it is another institutional officer who actually imposes the punishment that that's not approximate cause he was only i just expressing my own view with this obvious from the questions i put your friend i think it was a constitutional violation where he had to crawl across the floor to get to the restroom a reasonable officer would not know that that's an atypical environment for any there's no evidence in the record that i'm aware of the return of francis have any idea of the conditions in the street d i can understand where you would not permit a person or persons wheelchair to be brought in because of the creating weapons and so forth off the record has the department of corrections establish some possible some procedure for situations where prisoners in wheelchairs or sick with crutches and so forth may not context then we the friends and correct ok and that your main issue that is the main issue or the fellow was wasn't that wasn't the argument made before the jury retired to deliberate it might not have been made in the context of having both instruction instruction was given so we now have a marriage of councils argument and the law now would you argue differently then what was argued to the jury before that clarifying instruction  mean things first of all i disagree there was no marriage an argument of the facts to the law specifically that's missing is discussion on the naturalization of the father meaning there was no discussion as leafs did it i could see the argument if you had made reference to derivative citizenship in your closing argument but you want to make that last week that you're asking me to make your well the lie and i did misled in formulating or presenting arguments to the jury and here because we didn't have these instructions we couldn't go through and explain to the jury the residency requirements it's in no part but under the instructions it's mandatory he heard the facts well so why is he preventing you from making an argument because you need to have that marriage for closing argument to be needful otherwise it's an opening statement if you're just arguing fast from the trial that's all you've done the statute however it's i would i would argue it's a marginal improvement to be able to go to the prongs the statutes say where's the proof you're not ever recall hearing a prosecutor make a closing argument that did not involve be there's a comma because just seems misleading i'm the one that said these words and i believe i said but steve's just misleading trying to preserve my objection is just getting one part with the other was misleading but still trying to get see if i can get anything