well your argument now in the case of united states against to engage in a commercial sex act they should have only considered whether he knew that and let's talk a little bit about how that happened am i correct that the magistrate judge is in gauging in the jury instruction for some reason it wound up ultimately being in the jury instructions that jurors we know know how that happened the link that the instructions indep getting to the district judge the district judge ends up reading them to the jury as i understand it the also displayed on some type of the screen as well as the jury has a copy correct yes he read the judge the judge read the instructions to the jury your audience instructions he posted them on a screen at the same time he gave them copies and then he gave them copies to take back with them to the jury room so the concept the reason of our reckless disregard of this was was existed throughout the entire structure and work i believe their work it was it was a clear mistake i don't think either party or the court noticed it and for some reason unbeknownst i think to everybody it just made its way into the into the juror hands of the jury and the middle the prosecutor it to the jury but there was no argument that she offered is that correct to the jury about the reckless disc i'm just regard maybe we have the big prosecutor read it to the jury but and has taken the position i think that they didn't present evidence on reckless disregard but i would respond that throughout this isn't a case of where they're the government's presenting evidence of whether there was a gun found in the kitchen or the gun found in the car like the pearson case this is a case where the prosecution was offering a whole plethora of evidence over time that would have put their dead on mr withers mental state and so well they weren't arguing that necessarily knowing or or reckless per se i think that the government largely asked the the jury to just come to the conclusion that he different from this case because of the facts of this case in those cases both of those that in order to save time i'll just say that both of those cases were much more agreed justice and quick than in the case of mr withers  those cases mr carson raped a seventeen year old the day he met her the next day he arranged for commercial sex transactions were her he threatened to kill witnesses he he moved very quickly and so the question of whether he knew that his ass would cause a victim to engage in a commercial sex act were much more compelling same thing with mr gross he withheld drugs he burned his victims cigarettes when they wouldn't turn the money over and he threatened all three of his victims and actually as we got in in in opposite to that in this case counts one in three deal with tiffany grills on their teeth and then went out for dinner so  is looking at particularly that that is a victim in this case the question is looking at mr withers mind and this is not a mind this is a subjective analysis according to the defense offering if in fact it would be the consent of the victims to engage in the commercial sex or it were i don't think inquiries consent i think the inquiry is knowledge prostitutes correct her to look cross and forced her to have dates when she was eight months pregnant when he couldn't even complete because she was sick and threw up on the john who then said you're just take the money don't worry about it he was a defendant who made her do these things and one day he just say the other two counts were more one standing but it was only the defendant doing these things just say he recklessly disregarded what he was doing himself doesn't make sense and that's what this court found engro i understand the argument it's not as if the instruction had to do with circumstantial evidence and the debate was about something else the iranis instruction was connected to an element that the jury had to find right but what the defense has to show to win here is that the result probably would have been different had the instruction not been given and here to show that because had that instruction not been given the jury would have found i don't know and there is plenty of evidence on that it's hard to we weren't in the jury box but it's hard to imagine how they would have reckless disregard and there is no way to defense could show it probably would have been different there is so much evidence from the defendant forcings you need to do a date when she was bleeding from a kidney infection from the defendant threatening in hitting these women the pictures  then what's the point of even having it that's obviously a paraphrase this is a question for the jury these facts are completely different from the other two recent cases that this court heard on this thank you thank you