to the third case this morning paul versus young  the end of that date he was arrested by police officer and then she kind of the police officer in the process of that arrest the police officer broke my client's arm the only one issue objections here is that there were people lined up to eat and people walking back and forth there were other people in the video yes you're on it to twenty in the morning that's it seems maybe me but officer concluded he wanted to do an arrest and in the process of doing the arrest and it's on the video he broke my client's arm but you are the issue that's before you here is whether or not the lower court hurt by not allowing my client to have an expert witness now during the during the discovery there was a motion where the lower court ruled that my client denied my and the expert would have said your honor that using the wrist lock on bar in that circumstances was unreasonable force and it's not according to the training of the police officers  the the part to testify as to a process the use of force me trick system now and also in the in the they testified to the use of what's called a risk lock on bar now on on this on the issue of whether that's reasonable or not you have two officers keep in mind whose job it is to use force that's their job to use force they're trained in it you're using technical terms or judge powers that whether or not in wristlock arm bar or the use of force matrix was it was reasonable under these circumstances did you really question excuse me it's a jury question does need an expert own i submit to you that they don't officers testimony with respect to the highly technical terms such as  such as a risk lock on bar the use of a forced matrix all these technical terms are i submit to you lenny people who are not trained in the use of force do not know and in a dog hard decision you are it's pacifically state that where you need to assist the jury in their task what is their task their only task is to determine whether reasonable force was used now using a wrist lock all bar you are in that situation i submit to you is an illegal act in wrestling high school or college wrestling so but a layperson is not going to know that your honor at all a person is not going to know all the specific training that officers trained to use force and this is the i submit to you is the expertise of the officers on the stand and this is why we simply needed an expert witness to rebut all that john or what let me also say  this issue was on a motion in discovery were also of seek to reverse on the basis of four trial errors now i would not i understand the error has to be significant made it very effective to reverse a trial because it's a lot with respect to the expert witness but i strongly urge your score to reverse because it is fundamentally unfair to have one side say to the jury this is reasonable use of force all th technical terms all this training and on the other side you have absolutely nothing so that is that i believe that is an injustice there you are but with respect to the four issues that at the trial the errors committed there was none at the trial i want to point to the court one in particular i want to discuss and and link it to the expert and that is when the attorney for the city came up to the jury and said to the jury that because the the my client's wife was not present in the court he used that against him was his wife his wife wasn't there to defend him and that's of i think underhanded and prejudicial but your honor i think it's impeach him absolutely and i'd also need someone to impeach him fortunately his partner who was i said lee to say covering up for him if he was trained as he says he was trained he would be saying those things on the stand that they use reasonable two in the morning at that time here you know and i'm asking this court to be the whistle blowers and to let us simply go back down and analysts present our side of the story i mean think about the jury just simply if i was part of the jury i would move rule in favor the police officers we simply needed someone to say this is not reasonable force we had nothing on our side this was fundamentally unjust trial and i really believe where the lower court dropped the ball is i think excuse me on did you tender your witness as an expert prior to the cut off date set by the match let me explain that initial yes we did to answer your question strictly speaking yes we did the only reason we weren't allowed an expert witness was because characteristics that they put in there is false your honor well here's what happened what's in my brief your daughter's the reason she didn't come to testify that morning was because she took her and this is the least what we said to the judge arguments counsel was arguing to the jury then the wife was not here so therefore her husband must be guilty but can also know that from the morning that the wife had to take the child to the emergency room and she knew that the judge  what we said to the judge when we asked him to admit the deposition is that my understanding she took hers son to the hospital marginal on that day though she was supposed to testify previously on of the prior day her child was sick issues about the manner in which the district court conducted the trial however he fails to confront that reversal on any of these issues requires a showing of prejudice in responding to our point about this  his reply brief mr hall continues to maintain that the only transcripts necessary for this court's review are the two officers transcripts but that is incorrect this court has made clear that a complete record is necessary for this court perform its function and provide meaningful review on evidence shiri issues like the ones that mr hall is currently raising and we submit that the judgment for that of the district court should be confirmed affirmed on the basis that mr hall simply can't satisfy his burden to show credulous because he has not supplied this court with the complete trial transcript nor has he supplied the deposition transcripts or missed what he or the medical records of the documents that he is claiming are the basis for his errors in addition on many of these issues that he's pressing in front of this court he either failed to preserve the issue below or else says appellate presentation is lacking this court could also  affirm the judgment for those reasons all that aside this morning i will briefly address the merits on some of the issues that have been discussed this morning and that include the rebuttal expert in this what he's deposition transcript and the mistrial for the presentation this morning counsel has incorrectly said fork the facts about what occurred mr hall had the opportunity to provide an expert in this trial he could have called an expert however he failed it and that was a different test expert than the one he's now complaining about so there were two experts first there was an expert called i believe the last name was get out and that expert was the expert he missed the deadline with he didn't supply the report on time he was barred from calling that expert then a magistrate gave this officer john an opportunity to call an expert initially the officer was going to call an expert but prior to the magistrates deadline to turn over the materials to disclose his expert report there was no expert report that officer young's experts admitted because he was withdrawn before the deadline at that point there was no expert left in the case so thought was going to be given an opportunity to call a rebuttal expert who is now mr williams the one he's bringing forward now however because officer young did not have an expert there was no expert to  e the nature of a rebuttal is that it's responding to something from the other side's case officer young with in a timely manner withdrew his expert never supplied that an expert report of any sort there was indeed no mr hall believe that the testimony from the officers which we submit is factual testimony not opinion testimony but if mr hall thought that that was testimony that required expert rebuttal he had the obligation to raise that taught your honor we don't have the complete transcripts filing my they're from my understanding from the what is in the record officer young was testifying about the factual like they would stop the video and say ok now  your honor officer jones who was his partner was the one who killed him have come down to the question of what what is to be rebuttal right right i mean if you thought there was something to rebut he had the obligation to raise that to bring it to the court attention and to ask to call an expert in rebuttal he did not do that he forfeited any claim for that kind of error but there really wasn't anything to rebut because it was just factual description about what had occurred and the jury was able to view the video along you know the witnesses were viewing it in the course of the trial so they were able to view with their own eyes what was occurring and to make a determination was that excessive force was that not excessive force this is not a mr hall testimony even and you have snippets of a couple other of dr stays or thats it that's why we're submit that there is not the record that you would need to make the ruling that there was prejudicial error that warrants  inference from what is in the record that they were not in front of the camera at the time the encounter began according to the officers miss what he ran into the street flagged them down with blood on her face and then they got out of the car and then officer jiang approached mr hall that's when the they was by the restaurant security camera that was able to depict what happened so whether you know the initial encounter the initial stuff was not part of the video to my knowledge force was excessive as i said there's a videotape that depicted it you know there was a ranch i believe it was the maxwell street hotdog stand on seventy ninth and stony island which is what's north or south of prejudice from not admitting mr williams expert opinions which we submit would have been in admissible because they went to the ultimate legal issue that the jury was going to have to resolve or else they'd tried to resolve factual inconsistency but in any event this court doesn't have the record it would need to to determine that but for the admission of this expert the result could have been different at the trial now turning to miss what he's deposition transcript i just want to point out that on appeal mr wood he is using me mr hall is claiming that means what he's transcripts should have come in under a provision of the federal rules that he did not rely on below on appeal he's claiming the truth transcript was admissible under wall thirty two a forward b and that have to do with being one hundred miles from the courtroom in that case the deposition transfer can come in he didn't rely on to be below because miss when he was not a hundred miles from the courthouse the court why the district courts incorrectly refused to admit a step that would ease deposition transcript under sea so on appeal he's forfeited a challenge to the disc to ground the district court we did rely on force claim miss what he's testimony was going to go to what came up what led up to the incident did she actually approach him did she have blood on her face and so it was not prejudicial to mr hall to to exclude anyone relevant transcript the issue the jury actually had to decide it could see with his own up with its own eyes what happened and moreover miss what he's testing or any mr hall in his reply brief concede would have been consistent with the videotape so a best that's the admission that it would have been cumulative the jury had the videotape it didn't need the deposition transcript as well it was no not prejudicial to mr hall for the completely permissible they drew a permissible inference but the counsel did not actually say that there would have been on favorable testimony from any of the witnesses counsel simply reference the permissible inference that because there was no one to corroborate mr false testimony it was unbelievable but again on this issue improper comment during closing argument do not rise to the level of reversible error unless they are so prejudicial that they deny fair trial that did not happen because the remark was brief the court instructed counsel to move on which she did and there was substantial evidence to support the verdict in the form of the videotape that showed exactly what happened whatever hall's credibility because he couldn't have a witness to corroborate him could not possibly have been doing the determining factor because again this was not a case where it was conflicting witness testimony instead the jury could view for itself what happened and then finally the court gave an instruction that cured whatever remaining prejudice there possibly could have been and that was that a whig party does not have the obligation to call every witness that might have knowledge about the facts so in light of all that this is again on this issue mr hall cannot make the showing he needs to make to show that there was reversible er