West is arguing for an instruction that following is not illegal. Nelson asks for case law on the point. West says it is an accurate statement of the law, more by absence than affirmative case. The state is going to argue or insinuate that following is some sort of bad act, and it would be misleading and confusing to the jury if they are not told that following is not an illegal act. The instruction is a reaction to the state's argument, and could lead to an improper verdict if the jury is not told, by the court, that it not illegal to follow somebody.
Mantei objects. Following is a factor that goes to defendant's state of mind. Mantei says the legality of following is a fact at issue. Nelson says something about West asking Mantei to prove a negative (but actually, she is asking West to prove a negative). Nelson will not allow the language proposed by the defense (that following is legal).
West says she has continually disagreed with the court after it has ruled, and tells West to stop it. If she has made a mistake, West can appeal.
West says he will move orally in limine that the state be ordered not to insinuate that following is illegal. Nelson says does West want a transcript of the proposed close? No. Nelson denies the motion in limine. So, the state can insinuate that following is illegal or provocative. Another reversible error.