e is no there can be much no mistake that admission or conviction is the only basis to exclude to the rule for three analysis which gets more attention in the papers that rule for three  was clearly the information that was discussed on the record i am not certain that rule six oid be by its terms was invoked though the context i believe makes clear that counsel was cut off by the prosecutors say no it was a bad check that was i guess true part there was also a biotech incident that always it sake but there was also the second instance with the counterfeit docket used  or sixty four was there any allegations made against you regarding a badge checker up we have bank account with a bad check witness not to my knowledge i've never been in front of a judge or received any citation that i know of and i thought it was clear that this thing warrant signed by the prosecutor i think it would satisfy the reasonable basis but a question is prototype of a truthfulness i quite agree that we wouldn't assume that he had been convicted but under the much more forgiving standard examine so i thought i thought when the district court said that it wasn't that there was a rule of requiring admissions of culpability but that so little was offered here by defense counsel just this reference to this document mean i don't see that i mean i think that sort of a description of where this process led them to so we don't have a conviction some are not you know admitting something on the happensis and then we don't have but he was clear that that's not a requirement when he said it's not a conviction but doesn't have to be a conviction and if it's a bad after i think goes to credibility so i don't think i'm just quite ever since you have to have a conviction obviously if it were conviction that would be a helpful consideration but when it's not a conviction and it's been least somewhat closer to the type of fraud an issue in the case but what wasn't clear to me was that mr mccance ever broke it out for the judge there seemed to be this mentions and then everyone sort of thinks it's the same thing and the burden is on defense counsel was it not to say look there are two things going on here and he was announced about that one and he didn't win the witness came on so i think didn't isn't the real problem here that mr mccance dropped the ball on that second charge i'm just not sure we've got a ruling from the district court conscious and there were two pieces of evidence at issue certainly we do not have that and i will concede that the record is not as clear as it might be but you do have on the record a mention of the counterfeit documents as government is where the conversation was led astray but again the burden was on the defense counsel to come forward and show what the evidence is and why it should be admitted and so that's true and  my reading of the record drought are where the conversation to advance one the government's correction about the bad check secondly the education of the rule that the erroneous rule requiring of admission over three that would be quite a different piece and i guess my question is isn't for over three so given ms o'neill's defense that she did not intend to submit false documents but that this was the work of mr ramsey evidence regarding m financial conduct go directly to the most important factor in favor of her defense and the significance that i think is lost in the government's understanding of the prejudice is yes there was ample evidence of mr ramsey's call to villa the culpability in this case and that he is alive in the context of this case under four or three the to commit it to mortgage fraud as well so that i would submit is why under four three it's even more important to look at the constellation of different misstatements issues probative of his character for  be required  what exactly is involved because she didn't challenge nor did her counsel his sentencing memorandum challenge supervised release release or there was sort of a vague sentence about the amount of the offense but nothing specific that i think would preserve the now a challenge to the restitution order as there are so i'm trying to figure out and presumably she doesn't want to do sentencing that might not depart from through the filing of the sentencing memorandum she was still represented though kelso did make clear at the time that he was baffled how to proceed because of the instructions if you proceed from the same even after i'm not sure why i was baffled how to proceed with respect to the fi the oral argument when we do it if the only question we're going to be the oral argument which isn't even required certainly that is needed is a good question on her and i would say two things one we can't know what would have been said at sentencing which goes to the structural error that we have here it's so difficult for precisely the reasons you identified to assess a sort of harmlessness analysis in the deprivation of right to counsel context and so that i believe there's no reason to presume there the memorandum did come in with the headline that the counsel was baffled with how to proceed because of questions she had about how ms o'neill would like to  i would not read into this memorandum with confidence that she had been fully and normally represented right up until the moment at which she's really counsel at sentencing thank you misdemeanor on her in charge and that two thousand and six allegation that he opened a bank account with a project check there's no showing the court's ruling was any misunderstanding goal six zero eight b or the court committed i believe it was the earlier part of the proceedings that appeared prosecutor was somewhat mistaken in it appeared that she believed that you needed to have a conviction in order her to come into the court very quickly clarified and question that on future more secure incorrect discussions at the beginning of the discussion look parties in the court it is clear that the court knew and understood the rules and in addition to that the court did not rule in the end after hearing the board to hear from mr ramsey  so your honor what the court said before sixty seven was well after and this is after hearing what mr ramsey had to say about the incident said i mean unless there's some counsel has some other information about these allegations in maryland having been a criminal case and that there was some culpability or around that you minute culpability based on what he said i would have to conclude this is an appropriate way to go it sounds like unless there was a this was a criminal complaint in fact criminal case with a conviction or admitted culpability i'm leanin out how is that it is that an accurate statement of the law it's a statement there where it is saying and he continues and says based upon what he said referring to mr ramsey based on what's come out in the voir  dear there really isn't any there there that was my reading of it was that given what we've just heard in the our dear minister from what he said comes right after or he admitted culpability which he didn't he didn't have any culpability but in the same theme during the war  mr ramsey said i don't know about this incident the two thousand and three incident i was i was never in front of a judge i never received notice of anything and that actually comports with what defense allegations based on what mr ramsey said here there's it's not appropriate area to go into which really doesn't make sense under rule six away because the point of that rule is it is posed to be a situation where the jury is presented with information that bears upon the witnesses character for truthfulness or untruthfulness and here given them mr ramsey as stated in front of the court when you see question that he doesn't even have here and sort of derailed that conversation what do we do with that there was there was no limits on what mr i'm sorry his meals council was allowed to go into the van speaking about opening a bank account with a bad check and the government did bring it and that there was an utterance charge earlier in two thousand and three but the court asked the question just bring it up and you're going to that's what we're talking about here and that's the only thing anyone ever talked about after that and some that are problematic i don't believe it was because the information was turned over by the government in plenty of time as is required and the defense counsel was the first one to bring up the the opening of a bank account with a bad check and he was never precluded from asking him questions in regard to that when the court asked initially about ramsey specifically asked about both these said it is a been an allegation made against you regarding a bad check we're winning a bank account with a check and the witness said it not to his knowledge that he had been in front of a judge or received any citation that you knew of and then the court opened up questioning to with because this is information mr or ms o'neill's attorney had well before trial and even though you used other parts of the government's letters explaining prior acts by mr ramsey he truthfulness or untruthfulness character because he simply didn't know more about the allegations so there's really doesn't really add anything for the jury to hear denials or saying i don't know about these wealthy he had brought miss present as a straw buyer and it had come to the point where his presence son didn't even speak to him anymore because he had basically room his mother's credit and lied to her this is how mr ramsey put it so this was a very minor point well after cross examination was finished here and if anything it would be humility to information about mr ramsey's character for truthfulness or on truthfulness the court didn't misunderstand the rules of evidence and in doing so and simply defense counsel and person push for any further point here on the two thousand and six incident and for all of those reasons we would say that this was had no bearing on the half of the trial and the court has any questions about the sentencing issue anything else would be happy but otherwise we respectfully request that you some i believe i appreciate it just a quick point about the significance of mr ramsey to the government's case it's hard to cast this i believe is both cumulative and unimportance when you testimony from this snowden about her being solicited to commit a similar mortgage fraud i'm very close in time it's hard to say that that would not impact the much your reasons internationally i was curious as to trying to require a very direct inconsistency which frankly in the in the decision cited on the side i don't see this court or other courts requiring it to you know i direct you know two words lining up as yes and no what i think is clear here anderson is an excellent question on impeachment by contradiction whether something has to be more direct but as to prior inconsistent statements i think it's that argument is  made that there's room for a little more room leeway in determining consistency so i'm just curious in terms of prior consistent statement is as to why defense counsel framed it as one not the other  i'm not certain perhaps it was because there was this initial discussion about hearsay whether this was going to be hearsay as a verbal act or solicitation i think we've moved past that but perhaps the  you know look you should of contradiction be more far removed from hearsay would have explained that as to the difference here whether it was cast as one of the other i'm not sure it makes a tremendous difference given  i don't know if it was waived but that was not how the evidence was presented it ultimately you were pointed by the court to represent miss o'neill and the court thanks you for your system