Transcription
So, at this point in time, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to read the jury instructions to you. Miss McCllum is going to pass out to each of you one set of these jury instructions. So, you're welcome to read along with me, but you're not required to do so because when you go into the jury deliberation room, each of you will have your own set of jury instructions. So, ladies and gentlemen, I will now instruct you on the law that you must follow in reaching your verdict.
You are the judges of the facts of this case. You will decide what facts were proved by the evidence. However, you must follow these instructions even if you disagree with them. You must consider all the instructions as a whole and consider each instruction in the light of all the others. Do not single out any word, phrase, sentence, or instruction and ignore the others. No word, phrase, sentence, or instruction is more important just because it is repeated in these instructions. In the event that a statement or argument made by a lawyer contradicts or misstates these instructions, you must disregard that statement or argument and follow these instructions.
You must presume the defendant is innocent of the charge against them. This presumption remains with the defendant throughout the trial of the case unless and until the prosecution proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is not a mere slogan, but an essential part of the law that is binding upon you. It places upon the prosecution the duty of proving every material element of the offense charged against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. You must not find the defendant guilty upon mere suspicion or upon evidence which only shows that the defendant is probably guilty. What the law requires before the defendant can be found guilty is not suspicion, not probabilities, but proof of the defendant's guilt beyond the reasonable doubt.
What is a reasonable doubt? It is a doubt in your mind about the defendant's guilt which arises from the evidence presented or from the lack of evidence and which is based upon reason and common sense. Each of you must decide individually whether there is or is not such a doubt in your mind after careful and impartial consideration of the evidence. Be mindful, however, that a doubt which has no basis in the evidence presented or the lack of evidence or reasonable inferences there from or a doubt which is based upon imagination, suspicion or mere speculation or guesswork is not a reasonable doubt.
What is proof beyond reasonable doubt? If after consideration of the evidence and the law, you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, then the prosecution has not proved the defendant's guilt beyond the reasonable doubt, and it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. If after consideration of the evidence and the law, you do not have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, then the prosecution has proved the defendant's guilt beyond the reasonable doubt, and it is your duty to find the defendant guilty.
You must consider only the evidence that has been presented to you in this case and inferences drawn from the evidence which are justified by reason and common sense. The charging document is a mere formal accusation and it is not evidence of the defendant's guilt. You must not be influenced at all because the defendant has been charged with an offense.
Trial procedures are governed by rules. When a lawyer believes that the rules require it, it is their duty to raise an objection. It is my responsibility to rule on such objections. You must not consider objections made by lawyers in your deliberations. Statements or arguments made by lawyers are not evidence. You should consider their arguments to you, but you are not bound by their memory or interpretation of the evidence.
If I have said or done anything that has suggested to you that I favor either side, or if any of my statements or facial expressions has seemed to indicate an opinion as to which witnesses are or are not worthy of belief, or what facts are or are not proved, or what inferences should be drawn from the evidence, I instruct you to disregard it. You must also disregard any remark I may have made unless the remark was an instruction to you. You must not be influenced by pity for the defendant or by passion or prejudice against a defendant.
Both the prosecution and the defendant have a right to demand and they do demand and expect that you will carefully and impartially consider and weigh all of the evidence and follow these instructions and that you will reach a just verdict. You must disregard entirely any matter which the court has ordered stricken. You may but are not required to accept as conclusively proved any fact or event which the court has judicially noticed. You must accept as conclusively proved any fact which the parties have stipulated.
While you must consider all of the evidence in determining the facts in this case. This does not mean that you're bound to give every bit of evidence the same weight. You are the sole and exclusive judges of the effect and value of the evidence and of the credibility of the witnesses. It is your exclusive writer to determine whether and to what extent a witness should be believed and to give weight to his or her testimony accordingly.
In evaluating the weight and credibility of a witness's testimony, you may consider the witness's appearance and demeanor, the witness's manner of testifying, the witness's intelligence, the witness's cander or frankness or lack thereof, the witness's relation, if any, to a party, the witness's temper, feeling or bias, if any, has been shown, the witness's means and opportunity of acquiring information, the probability or improbability of the witness's testimony, the extent to which the witness is supported or contradict predicted by other evidence, the extent to which the witness has made contradictory statements, whether in trial or at other times, and all other circumstances surrounding the witness, and bearing upon his or her credibility.
Inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony of a witness or between the testimony of different witnesses may or may not cause you to discredit such testimony. In weighing the effect of inconsistencies or discrepancies, whether they occur within one witness's testimony or as between different witnesses, consider whether they concern matters of importance or only matters of unimportant detail, and whether they result from innocent error or deliberate falsehood. If you find that a witness has deliberately testified falsely to any important fact or deliberately exaggerated or suppressed any important fact, then you may reject the testimony of that witness except for those parts which you nevertheless believe to be true.
You're not bound to decide a fact one way or another just because more witnesses testify on one side than the other. It is testimony that has a convincing force upon you that counts and the testimony of even a single witness, if believed, can be sufficient to prove a fact. The prosecution is not required to call as witnesses all persons who may have been present at any of the events disclosed by the evidence or who may appear to have some knowledge of these events or to produce all objects or documents mentioned or suggested by the evidence. The defendant has no duty or obligation to call any witnesses or produce any evidence.
The defendant in this case has testified. When a defendant testifies, his credibility is to be tested in the same manner as any other witness. The defendant has a constitutional right and the legal duty to be present throughout the trial and while other witnesses testify. You must not draw any unfavorable inference regarding the credibility of the defendant's testimony on the basis that he was present during the trial.
During the trial, items are received into evidence as exhibits. These exhibits will be available for your review when you deliberate. In addition to facts which council has stipulated to be true and facts which the court has taken judicial notice of, there are two types of evidence. Direct evidence such as the testimony of witnesses who assert actual knowledge of a fact and circumstantial evidence which permits a reasonable inference of the existence of another fact. Facts may be proved by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or by a combination of both.
The state of mind with which a person act commits an act such as intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently may be proved by circumstantial evidence. While witnesses may see and hear, and thus be able to give direct evidence of what a person does or fails to do, there can be no eyewitness account of the state of mind with which the acts are done or admitted. But what a person does or fails to do may or may not indicate the state of mind with which he does or refrains from doing an act. A person is not guilty of an offense unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the person acted with the required states of mind as these instructions specify with respect to each element of the offense. The instruction for the offense charge specifies the states of mind required to be proved.
During the trial, you heard the testimony of certain witnesses who are allowed to provide opinion testimony. Training and experience may make a person qualified to provide opinion testimony in a particular field. The law allows that person to state an opinion about matters in that field. Merely because such a witness has express an opinion does not mean, however, that you must accept this opinion. It is up to you to decide whether to accept this testimony and how much weight to give it. You must also decide whether the witness's opinions were based on sound reasons, judgment, and information.
The defendant, Gerard Kone, is charged with the offense of attempted murder in the second degree. A person commits the offense of attempted murder in the second degree if he intentionally engages in conduct which under the circumstances as he believes them to be is a substantial step in a course of conduct intended or known to cause the death of another person. There are two material elements of the offense of attempted murder in the second degree each of which the prosecution must prove beyond the reasonable doubt. These two elements are one on or about March 24, 2025 in the city and county of Honolulu, the defendant intentionally engaged in conduct and two the conduct under the circumstances as defendant believed them to be was a substantial step in a course of conduct intended or known to be practically certain by the defendant to cause the death of Ariel Koig. Conduct shall not be considered a substantial step unless it is strongly corroborative of the defendant's intent to commit murder in the second degree, which is intentionally or knowingly causing the death of another person.
Self-defense is a defense to the charge of attempted murder in the second degree and its included offenses. Self-defense involves consideration of two issues. First, you must determine whether the defendant did or did not use deadly force. Second, you must determine whether the force used was justified. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the force used by the defendant was not justified. If the prosecution does not meet its burden, then you must find the defendant not guilty.
The first issue is did the defendant use deadly force? Deadly force means force which the defendant uses with the intent of causing or which he knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury. Force means any bodily impact, restraint or confinement or the threat thereof. If you determine that the defendant used deadly force, then you are to proceed to the section of this instruction entitled deadly force used. If you determine that the defendant did not use deadly force, then you are to proceed to the section in this instruction entitled deadly force not used. The the determination of whether or not the defendant did or did not use deadly force must be unanimous. You must then follow the law in the applicable section to determine the second issue, which is whether the force used by the defendant was justified.
Deadly force used. The use of deadly force upon or toward another person is justified if the defendant reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself on the present occasion against death or serious bodily injury. The reasonleness of the defendant's belief that the use of protective deadly force was necessary shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the defendant's position under the circumstances of which a defendant was aware or as a defendant reasonably believed them to be when the deadly force was used. The use of deadly force is not justified if the defendant with the attempt of causing death or serious bodily injury provoke the use of force against himself in the same encounter. The use of deadly force is not justifiable if the defendant knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating.
Deadly force not used. The use of force upon or toward another person is justified if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect himself on the present occasion against the use of unlawful force by the other person. The reasonleness of the defendant's belief that the use of protective force was immediately necessary shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the defendant's position under the circumstances of which the defendant was aware or as a defendant reasonably believed them to be. The defendant may estimate the necessity for the use of force under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be when the force is used without retreating. Unlawful force means force which is used without the consent of the person against whom it is directed and the use of which would constitute an unjustifiable use of deadly force or force. A person cannot consent to the infliction of death, serious bodily injury, or substantial bodily injury.
Self-defense is not available for the incomplete offenses of assault in the second degree by recklessly causing substantial bodily injury and assault in the third degree by recklessly or negligently causing bodily injury. If the prosecution proves that one, the defendant was reckless in believing that he was justified in using deadly force or force against the other person, or two, the defendant was reckless in acquiring or failing to acquire any knowledge or belief which was material to the justifiability of his use of deadly force or force against the other person.
If and only if you unanimously find that all the elements of attempted murder in the second degree has been proven by the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubt and you unanimously find that the defendant was not acting in self-defense, then you must consider the affirmative defense of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. Extreme mental or emotional disturbance has two elements. These two elements are one, the defendant was at the time he attempted to cause the death of the other person under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. And two, there was a reasonable explanation for the extreme mental or emotional disturbance. The reasonleness of the explanation shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. The question of the defendant's self-control or lack of it at the time of the offense is a significant factor in deciding whether he was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
The defendant must prove an affirmative defense by preponderance of the evidence. This means that the defendant must prove that it is more likely than not or more probable than not that each element of extreme mental or emotional disturbance occurred. In determining whether the defendant has proven an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, you must consider all of the evidence that has been presented to you, regardless of who presented it. If you unanimously find that the defendant has proven the evidence of the affirmative defense by proponents of the evidence, then you must find the defendant guilty of attempted manslaughter based upon extreme mental or emotional disturbance. If you unanimously find that the defendant has not proven the elements of the affirmative defense by a prepoundonderance of the evidence, then you must find the defendant guilty of attempted murder in the second degree. If you are unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to whether the affirmative defense has been proved or not been proved, then a verdict may not be returned on attempted murder in the second degree.
If and only if you find the defendant not guilty of attempted murder in the second degree or you are unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to this offense, then you must consider whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the included offense of attempted assault in the first degree. A person commits the offense of attempted assault in the first degree if he intentionally engages in conduct under the circumstances as he believes them to be constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct intended to culminate in his commission of assault in the first degree. There are two material elements of the offense of attempted assault in the first degree each of which the prosecution must prove beyond the reasonable doubt. These two elements are one on or about March 24, 2025 in the city and county of Honolulu, the defendant engaged in conduct which under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be was a substantial step in a course of conduct intended by the defendant to culminate in the commission of assault in the first degree and two the defendant engage in such conduct intentionally. conduct shall not be considered a substantial step unless it is strongly cooperative of the defendant's intent to commit assault in the first degree. The defendant commits the offense of assault in the first degree if he intentionally or knowingly causes serious bodily injury to aerial comment.
If and only if you find a defendant not guilty of attempted assault in the first degree or you're unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to this offense, then you must consider whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the included offense of assault in the second degree. This offense can be committed in one of two ways. Assault in the second degree, substantial bodily injury, or assault in the second degree, dangerous instrument.
As to the first alternative, a person commits the offense of assault in the second degree substantial bodily injury if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes substantial bodily injury to another person. There are two material elements of the offense of assault in the second degree substantial bodily injury, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond the reasonable doubt. These two elements are one on or about March 24, 2025 in the city and county of Honolulu, the defendant caused substantial bodily injury to Ariel Kone and two the defendant did so intentionally, knowingly or recklessly.
As to the second alternative, a person commits the offense of assault in the second degree dangerous instrument if he intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another person with the dangerous instrument. There are three material elements of the offense of assault in the second degree dangerous instrument each of which the prosecution must prove beyond the reasonable doubt. These three elements are one on or about March 24, 2025 in the city and county of Honolulu, the defendant caused bodily injury to Ariel Kone and two the defendant did so with a dangerous instrument and three the defendant acted intentionally or knowingly as to elements one and two. You're to consider each alternative of assault in the second degree separately. The fact that you may find one of the alternatives has or has not been proved beyond the reasonable doubt does not mean that you must reach the same decision with respect to the other alternative. In order to find that the offense of assault in the second degree has been proved, you must unanimously agree that the same alternative or both of the alternatives have been proved beyond the reasonable doubt. Proof beyond the reasonable doubt of one or both of the alternatives will result in the conviction of only one offense of assault in the second degree.
If and only if you find a defendant not guilty of assault in the second degree or you are unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to any of the alternatives, then you must consider whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the included offense of assault in the third degree. This offense can be committed in either of two ways. Assault in the third degree, bodily injury, or assault in the third degree, dangerous instrument.
As to the first alternative, a person commits the offense of assault in the third degree, bodily injury, if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another person. There are two material elements of the offense of assault in the third degree, bodily injury. each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These two elements are one on or about March 24, 2025 in the city and county of Honolulu, the defendant caused bodily injury to Ariel Kone and two the defendant did so intentionally, knowingly or recklessly.
As to the second alternative, a person commits the offense of assault in the third degree dangerous instrument if he negligently causes bodily injury to another person with a dangerous instrument. There are three material elements of the offense of assault in the third degree dangerous instrument each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. These three elements are one on or about March 24, 2025 in the city and county of Honolulu, the defendant caused bodily injury to Ariel Kone and two the defendant did so with a dangerous instrument and three the defendant acted negligently as to elements one and two. The fact that you may find one of the alternatives has or has not been proved beyond the reasonable doubt does not mean that you must reach the same decision with respect to the other alternative. In order to find that the offense of assault in the third degree has been proved, you must unanimously agree that the same alternative or both of the alternatives has been proved beyond the reasonable doubt. Proof beyond the reasonable doubt of one or both of the alternatives will result in the conviction of only one offense of assault in the third degree.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'll amend the instructions so that it reads the way I read it out loud. If and only if you find that the prosecution has proved the offense of assault in the third degree beyond the reasonable doubt, you must also consider whether the fight or scuffle was entered into by mutual consent, whether expressly or by conduct. You must determine whether the prosecution has proven beyond the reasonable doubt that the fight or scuffle was not entered into by mutual consent. This determination must be unanimous and it is to be indicated by answering yes or no on a special interrogatory that will be provided to you.
Dangerous instrument means any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance whether animate or inanimate which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury. Serious bodily injury means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. Substantial bodily injury means a major avulsion, major laceration or major penetration of the skin or a burn of at least secondderee severity or bone fracture or a serious concussion or a tearing rupture or corrosive damage to the esophagus, visera or other internal organs. Bodily injury means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.
A person acts intentionally with respect to his conduct when it is his conscious object to engage in such conduct. A person acts intentionally with respect to attended circumstances when he is aware of the existence of of such circumstances or believes or hopes that they exist. A person acts intentionally with respect to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious object to cause such a result.
A person acts knowingly with respect to his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature. A person acts knowingly with respect to attended circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect to result of his conduct when he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.
A person acts recklessly with respect to his conduct when he consciously disregards the substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person's conduct is of the specified nature. A person acts recklessly with respect to attendant circumstances when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such circumstances exist. A person acts recklessly with respect to a result of his conduct when he consciously consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause such a result. A risk is substantial and unjustifiable. If considering the nature and purpose of the person's conduct and the circumstances known to him, the disregard of the risk involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the same situation.
A person acts negligently with respect to his conduct when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk taken that the person's conduct is of the specified nature. A person acts negligently with respect to attended circumstances when he should be aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk that such circumstances exist. A person acts negligently with respect to a result of his conduct when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause such a result. A risk is substantial and unjustifiable if the person's failure to perceive it considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a law-abiding person would observe in the same situation.
The law allows the introduction of evidence for the purpose of showing that there is more than one to prove an element of an offense or to disprove a defense. In order for the prosecution to prove an element of an offense or to disprove a defense, all 12 jurors must unanimously agree that the same act has been proved beyond the reasonable doubt. You must not discuss or consider the subject of penalty or punishment in your deliberations of this case.
A verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. And in order to reach a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agree thereto. In other words, your verdict must be unanimous. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but it is your duty to consult with one another and to deliberate with the view to reaching an agreement if you can do so without violating your individual judgment. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to re-examine your own views and change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous, but do not surrender your honest belief as to the weight or effective evidence for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.
You have been allowed to take notes during this trial. When you begin deliberations, you must follow some important rules with regard to notes. One, notes may be used only by you to assist in refreshing your memory of the evidence. Notes are not a substitute for your own independent memory of the evidence. Two, keep your notes to yourself and do not share or read them to any other juror. Three, you must not give certain evidence more weight simply because it appears in your notes. Do not assume that your notes are accurate or complete. Four, some of you may not have taken notes. If you have not taken notes, you should rely on your memory of the evidence and should not be influenced by the fact that another juror took notes. Notes are not entitled to any greater weight than the memory of each juror as to what the testimony may have been. Anytime you leave the room during deliberations, leave your notes face down on your chair. Six, if you go home overnight without reaching a verdict, your notes will be kept by the court and returned to you at the start of the next day. Your notes will not be read by anyone. Seven, after you have reached a verdict, your notes will be collected and destroyed.
At the start of your consideration of this case, elect one of your members as forperson to preside over your deliberations and be your spokesperson in court. You may take such time as you feel is necessary for your deliberations. You may inform the court if you have any questions about or do not understand the court's instructions. When you reach your verdict, the four person is to sign and date the verdict, an appropriate form for which will be given to you. When you begin your deliberations and until you are through with your consideration of this case or you're otherwise excused by the court, it is necessary that you remain together as a body. Court personnel will be sworn to attend you and take care of any personal problems you may have and see to your comfort. If you need to communicate with the court, send a note through the baiff. Please do not attempt to communicate with the court except in writing.
During the course of this trial, you have received all of the evidence you may consider to decide the case. You must not attempt to gather any information on your own which you might which you think might be helpful. Do not engage in any outside reading on any matter having anything to do with this case. Do not refer to dictionaries or other outside sources. Do not visit any places mentioned in the case. Do not in any other way try to learn about the case outside the courtroom during your recesses from deliberations when you are released to go home in the evening. You must not discuss this case with anyone or permit anyone to discuss this case with you. You must not read or listen to news accounts about this case if there are any. You must not discuss this case with any person other than your fellow jurors. You must not reveal to the court or to any other person how the jury stands numerically or otherwise until you have reached unanimous verdict and it has been received by the court.
You may bring in either one of the following verdicts. One, not guilty or two, guilty charge of attempted murder in the second degree or three guilty of attempted manslaughter based upon extreme mental or emotional disturbance. or four, guilty of attempted assault in the first degree or five, guilty of assault in the second degree or six, guilty of assault in the third degree. Your verdict must be unanimous. After a verdict has been reached and your person has signed and dated the verdict form, you will notify the bale and court will be reconvened to receive the verdict.
Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take our first morning recess. You leave your notebooks on your chair along with your set of jury instructions. As I indicated, the jury instructions, these two pages will be amended. So, two pages will be replaced. So, the written instructions that you have will be as I read them out loud here in court. And we'll take a recess. We'll take a 15 minute recess. Miss McCallen will come get you at 10:10. When we come back in, we will continue on or start with the summation or closing arguments of the parties. All rise.
Page 19 references guilty of murder in the second degree. The court read attempted murder in the second degree. So it should be amended last sentence in the first paragraph. The words between of and murder the word attempted should be inserted. Same change. uh last sentence of the instruction. It should be attempted murder in the second degree. That's how it's led to the court. Mr. Garner, any objections to the amendments of the instructions? >> No objections. >> How much you talking? >> This is on page 19, correct? >> Yes, sir. Yes, sir. >> In the in the two places where it said murder instead of attempted. >> Correct. >> Uh, yeah, no problem. >> One more change, council. Page 24. Uh, and I need you to take a look at not just page 24, but also page 22. Uh, I read to the jury the last paragraph that's in page 22 that is not on page 24. Uh, indicating that again they need to consider the alternatives separately. They must be unanimous if they're going to come back on an alternative or both alternatives. And that if they do come back on two, it results in only a singular conviction. It mirrors the language in uh page two except it's assault in the third as it was read and to the amendment. Mr. Garner, >> no objection. How about you, Mr. T? >> No objection. Thank you. >> Yeah. Now, as the instructions are read to the jury, uh council, any objections uh to the instructions as a whole other than what we've already settled on the record >> other than our previous subjections, nothing new. >> Not from you, >> Mr. Garner. Have you had the opportunity to review the proposed verdict forms, specialty, and communication forms? >> Yes. >> Any objections? >> No. >> How about you, Mr. >> Uh, no objections. I did review it. >> Okay. Anything we should take up before we take our recess? >> Nothing from the state. Um, just that we're going to take a break after I I'd ask that we Well, I think we need to take a break after the state's closing so I can set up and also show the state my PowerPoint at that point. Um, that's fine. >> Yeah, I intended that anyway. Um, I I did have one more thing. I'm sorry. I'm glad I remembered it. Um, the normal course of closing is the state take the break defense, right? and then go straight into states rebuttal. Correct. If the defense is going to argue the affirmative defense of extreme or emotional disturbance, then defendant has s rebuttal. We didn't discuss that, but that is the state. So if the defense is going to argue that then there's sutral. They'll come right after the state's rebuttal and then I'll give the final part of the jury before send them to deliberation. Council, any agreement with that? Yes, with the understanding that that should that happen, the sort of bill is limited to the EED. >> Oh, it's only on Emed. Yeah. >> Okay. Council, thank you. Courts in recess. And off record, I'm going to now look at his PowerPoint and