jury found in favor of the government stockhausen and so he shoots one brother then another brother appears on the scene and he is shot ok now do we not go back in time to his first appearance at the residence saying i'm i'm hearing that you people want to do something w peter is shot in the back in the arm fugere then goes down through the floor in the kitchen the second victim his brother robert during the sounds of the shots goes motivation as to robert appears to be as strong as the motive with regards to the first victim peter how did you use the transfer theory if you had the evidence the motive brothers well the prosecutor made a decision to ask for instructions on that theory i actually did at one point argue to the jury that if you find the shooting of roberts was accidental then you can rely on transferred intent the prosecutor was just trying to cover all his bases if you look at his argument he never adopt there was no clue you know which have you read into practitioners mind and you understand that it would have to come through the testimony of either people who lived in the house and investigating a detective who sketched a crime scene diagram  allegation was added as to both counts that the attempted murders were committed with deliberation premeditation but i mean quarreling as to the instructions asking is not what the government argued as to what the court charged as to both brothers record the court's charged i tempted murder based on a specific  not charged with those crimes your argument that it's unfair to convict my client because of the admissions that he made because as i understand the record the prosecution could not charge burglary under section fo fifty nine based on the state of the record at the time of the preliminary hearing because they didn't have an admission from your client that he entered with and can so is that your argument that it's unfair to convict him based upon his own that it does not matter why the prosecution is adding new charges in the end of the trial i can't do it it does not matter if that's based on the testimony given a trial for example and this court case brady raines it was how can you say that if he admitted he if  that's what he said after years after he ended he is in the office it's not right and then he threatened to kill anyone else from the record the prosecutor does make a statement when he does request the burglary instruction that i could have charged earlier and and basically i think there's a distinction between the prosecutor's charging duties and also and also if you come out at the preliminary hearing but after trial it came out that he entered the store before without any sense of his feeling other jacket before in the store and basically basically i think that gray could be eges the actual fans and in that case it was originally charged as a forcible rape case and the prosecution waited until after the defendant had made it on the stand that he had sex but insisted that it was consensual then the amended the charge to say ok now you're charged with statutory rape she was under eighteen or seventeen or whatever you're guilty based on your mission we said you can't do that that's not adequate notice  well so how do you distinguish that i don't remember whether that was the case where they discussed ambush but it was them but i think in this case there was no there's no intent to there's no intent to ambush