in this case we are seeking to reverse three errors by the district corps of trial in this matter st the district court decision to exclude an angle to the cross examination about a terminations letter to britain to one of the defendant who stopped participating in the case and was not present at trial and rd the district courts exclusion of evidence about the prisons failure to request big surveillance that would have captured the defendants assault on mr trotter in this case we recognize the court standard for you on these issues is abuse and discretion and we and we recognise that that can be difficult to meet we should make your honour's that here that that standard is met these were clear and prejudicial abuses of discretion stepping back mr trotter a lance by defendants in this case mr trotter at the time was a prisoner at the evidence of his injuries sustained at the hands of the defendants including two black guys and other facial and head injuries the defendants in this case arrived to find mr trotter after he had one of their to a trial your and that's what made the district court's errors in this case particularly harmful because the evidence that was excluded and the instruction that was not given tended to prove case and tended to directly disprove defendant's case and so we should make your honour's that evidence in that instruction would change a tone of the trial and there's no reasonable assurance that the outcome would have been the s then had to do with his actions on finding this other and we also think it went directly to motive similarly in that he finds this inmate having assaulted his fellow immediately ruled that it was not to come in and so i think a limited structure could have dealt with any of the issues that we're talking about now mr martin were you allowed to cross examine character truthfulness as well but i was not allowed to cross examine about about the prior incidents of excessive force so as i mentioned we started the carson the poly which is theories of the case here in that the plaintiffs the plaintiffs in the case alleged excessive force used by the guards and the guards said no we reacted coolly and professionally and so the fist circuit found that the guards reaction was in part a matter of n the court acknowledged that the instruction that was given adversely determine the key material fact that would not have been made mcfarland could have been found liable and could have committed excessive force with is your honor he was not he was not a trial we were deprived of the ability to get evidence from him we were further prejudiced from the fact that we couldn't get his trial testimony get another story out presented at trial and the medical records and none of that purpose is a harmless error before i get to the error aspect of it to present a little bit none of the opening brief and i think that's relevant for purposes harmless or in terms of the questions that you're honestly close to mr martin just cross and just venting us about the letter being offered completely without any redactions if you go look at joint appendix twenty two dollars twenty cents the entire letter was offered that the offer through the entire letter was off without any redactions whatsoever just grounder us about the opportunity to cross examine our position in the briefing in a trial has been that it would have created a whole m trial about peripheral matters that we didn't think was were network common enough with the issues in this case but if you look at the joint appendix at thirty six mr martin wanted to cross examine about about his truthfulness and mr shipley said  appendix that he was going to dispute that he had lied in the letter so we'd be we'd be having this whole many trial about what was said in the letter what wasn't said it was completely have detracted from the primary issues in the case which is what is the medical evidence show in this case and whose account is more believable and i think that just cuts right to the heart of this matter judge if you look at me and then one of the question from ju situation and if i just may for the medical record the reason i think that's important is even if this court assumes without the tiding that there was evidence here in this case and we don't think that was the big the attempted and did not abuse her discretion if you look at the medical occurred nothing alarming that he would actually refer his injuries or himself to his primary care physician dr brick that says dr no complaints to nurse link with thirty plus hours after the incident occurred and age x rays came back with no evidence of any skull fractures no problems with opening his jaw there were no missing teeth no oral trauma just a bunch of other unbiased medical evidence that the jury was free to believe or disbelieve in in this case they believe the officer's testimony and they believe that the jury believe that that testimony was consistent with the evidence the record i would just point out that we don't believe that they're in this case for the reasons that we that i just stated to your honest questions and also to what we said in the briefing but i think even if you assume that there was error in this case i just don't think the medical record or the medical evidence lines up with the story look at the end of the day corrections officers have a very difficult job and in part it's because they have to professionally and we just don't believe in the jury certainly didn't believe that there were any issues in this case with respect to their credibility they chose to believe their testimony and it aligned with the medical evidence and that was enough for them the that's just a common occurrence or something that happens and they have to be professional so in terms of intent i think they're just different events i think it's difficult to show that two years after this happens somehow retroactively you had the motive or and then but at the end of the day you say we get these one thousand and fifteen calls all the time when officers need assistance and we have to respond in a neutral matter and he was asked several times at the trial in terms of the debt inflame your emotions or otherwise aggravate your  perceptions of this case and he said no unequivocally they followed the proper course and i think in terms of the letter showing some kind of intent or a motive i just don't see a judge and frankly i think the prejudice as we stated earlier would have just been  out that that's pure speculation we don't know sitting here today was the jury found that these defendants lacked the requisite intent in other words that they that they lacked the intent to act  for the purpose of causing harm that could have been the reason for the jury verdict and if that was the case then our evidence goes the letter goes directly to that asking your honour's to