I did not view and do not view the law as providing that there is some exhaustion requirement, although I understand some cases have said that. In this particular fact situation -- and I do think, I will say, on the issue of precedent, you can distinguish cases of -- and I'm not so sure I would be as fearful as some might be as to precedential value. I think this case is somewhat distinguishable, and I don't know that a judge in another situation would knee-jerk allow this type of testimony. We are in a very unique situation here, and that's what we have.
The person does not agree with the law