the jury even asked the question the jury had been told the start of the trial that the usual of carriages was like well something that they don't have to worry about and all after they were back in the jury correct yeah right that's when he noticed the error of not giving them the proofs have been closed at that point correct correct the proofs have been close but again the proof of something that need not be proven the nature of a stipulation by law is that in limiting it's the need for proof so what you're saying is we have a something that needs to be proven and that's what the jail gentlemen was great enough he didn't prove this element but if a stipulation says you any dollar amount correct and that's what they submitted their questions to the court saying can you tell us with him other damages up and the question deserve an answer and the question of the response the court period was you have to had deserves a response question the jury head was not an issue for the trier effect the stipulation removes an issue for the trier effect to this song so i think the jury instruction should have a number let us a better the instruction it was prepared prior to the conference yeah i believe even after the conference that statement his opening statement she did issue admission made open the damages are not an issue to worry about  came if they gave the stipulation of fourteen thousand and twenty nine dollars fifty cents and the jury came back and said that the truck was worth thirty thousand dollars could the jury  no mo the jury could not because that matter was decided the jury the court would not affirm that because that issue was not a matter for them to the soft light scream you're serious by definition are minor mistakes proof of damages or presentation of the amount of damages is critical to a case of this nature it is not my neary it is a need your facts so how can we consider descriptors here because it's a scrivener's error because it's an issue of one might or persons major you're talking about it didn't affect interest thinking at all that's what the case law talks about no two is a big issue of fact for the jury and the answer is no because every case law says the stimulation removes it from being an issue effect i guess still have to know about it and you were sound i believe somewhere either in that it must have been in the brief that i read it because it's where i was reading there the court had some responsibility to bring that to the jury's attention and i just don't understand how the court can be made to be an advocate in this case because if  gentleman lawyer doesn't have an obligation to present evidence on behalf well i would say this i would say that when they argue in the brief that the there's obviously some confusion about the submitting the amounts to the jury when the jury comes in the asking the court says you have all the evidence that came out at that point you're submitting that the court could have given them the stipulation yes what he had to have to call them back again and that new evidence no people and i see that because of this case either because the amount of damages was not for the jury to decide to present evidence for the jury to decide something they stipulation is for presenting damages to the jury but how is it all made to miss us the need for presenting the stipulation to the jury the level of breaking down you're saying they stipulated that to the damages therefore nobody needs to present it to the that's the problem in this case no i i was in the stipulation presented we still don't have an answer to what the answer is the simplest answer is it's an oversight and the nd answer is that the instructions that the court and  we tried the best you could but you know at the end of the day the question is the stipulation was it reduced to writing but we're sitting here now where were the judge asked in said you have the right to decide whether it's going to be r took a different position when it came right down to that's that's what's that's what the issue is let me ask you one other question raiser you raised and raised you are you raising the raise or could it raise or the court putting the damages amount in i would say in refusing to hear his his pleas to reopen and preserve the jury that number yes and i would say interest even though you've already agreed to what you could do above your ethical obligation that's very troubling isn't it i think the whole situation is troubling i'm plainness council put me in this situation by making this mistake and then the judge put me in this situation  i can't stress enough i did not like the situation that i was saying i thought that there were two to live two problems that i was dealing with one was the simulation itself the other was the client i didn't want to open myself up to my own now practice situation or my own obvious too that their point they wouldn't be talking about damages if they hadn't already found liability how did that fifteen to your decision my decision was based soley on the fact  and after that time they were asking for factual information that i believe that if i was the one that gave the ok then i would have not been doing my client the code of ethics what i suppose that was what i was thinking and this is all this is all on the spot and i understand that this is part of the job here but i was looking at those two things i did not like the situation and i made that call because yeah yeah i mean the whole point of this thing to me was they just never heard him out of the damages the plane basically the elements of the case and so you know i mean they i mean that is a simple is that i thought that at that point in time i was asked to face the profit just house of created and i don't know that's that's that's something that i'm supposed to do i didn't like the situation at all but it was a situation where i just i did not know choice but to say i am not here to fix this counsel's clear mistake it is regrettable i do not like this at all but i do not think that it is proper for me to think that that is decision on his own you know this is the stipulation or whatever the case may be to me again i was concerned about what it would look what would happen to me if i was the one that got plans council out of the gym that he put himself in i just you know it was a tough position for me to be in i don't want to play like i'm a victim here or anything like that this was just a decision i had to come up with i argued well you know we have a stipulation and you didn't have to tell and it was in the end but now you're saying they never prove damages he's going to say here we have a stipulation maybe a light would go on and use it all week i never presented mean of course that they're going to lot of different avenues taken but at the end of the day it was always my understanding that it's it would be their obligation to say this is the amount of money that i'm asking for right and of those circumstances i just i feel i don't know where it would have ended up with me if i would have sure i just houses a state and that's not a fair position for me to be and i did not create the situation and so one way or another i'm going to be judged by others as to how i handled it and that i handled it poorly and that was  yeah i understand i understand briefly justice hudson who asked me a question earlier and i've been thinking about it that was he said the judge's obligation to give their money i think the answer is yes but i tell you why i think  listening all the questioning we've all agreed that the jury instruction and damages was wrong and if the jury instruction on here which is was wrong the law the judge has an obligation to correct th remedy that you're actually or less well i think the j o b was incorrect because of the logical basis for the jury you know he was the fair that the player failed to prove that which they need not because the issue damages was damages were they decided liability mr scobell was understanding of the agreement was no you she was liability sure you could do up all remainder for the eight thousand whatever it is i think based on the fact that there's a clear conflict