Mr. Novak

of prejudicing a fair trial.

That is a more protective standard than that which appears in Rule 3.6, and we think it's the appropriate standard which should be applied here.

And that's part of, as we've told the court before, a motion that we will bring because we actually think that while the court's order is wholly appropriate, it's not vague, it's not over broad, it's not a prior restraint, and it doesn't create a lack of clarity for the state, we would like it to be a little bit broader in other areas.

especially concerning the standard to be applied and the definition of what is the prosecution team, but that's not germane to hear.

So we think that while we understand the state's concern, we think that their motion should be denied.

I think at the last hearing, the court actually clarified verbally from the bench what it meant by a witness, and I think that's pretty close to what we described in our papers as a potential lay witness.

So I feel like if I say anything more, I'm going to be reiterating again what's already in our papers.

If I've muddled it, I'm sure the court will tell me and I'll clarify it.

I hope I haven't.

Okay, thank you.