but during the trial the government didn't just bring this evidence of the government also introduced in the testimony of shelby ward who testified on numerous occasions that he would  hollis for many years for the past three or four years i meet with him thirty or more times on various amounts of drugs and different types of cocaine or cocaine based but there were no specific jury after the testimony that it should not be that the jury should not confuse that testimony with evidence of guilt for the instant offense which is essentially one transaction and the fact of testified at trial that he conducted transactions after the undercover purchase from policy that were not under that were not monitored and that were not permitted by the authorities at the time so you know there's sufficient explanation on the record demonstrating that he he was not and not only was he a criminal a drug dealer which we're dealing with often but he was also continuing to engage in illegal activities while he was cooperate and for that reason we're saying that there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate these allegations of thirty or forty transactions in the prior two or three years to this instance there wasn't sufficient evidence to demonstrate  not just if we do have one witness testifying to this we also have a witness to his it's clearly untruthful and continuing to be untruthful when acting in a legal matter after he had had basically dory's yes well like i said there's testimony on the record concerning and forgive me i was not counsel during the trial so i have a record just like you to to look at and to review but i think that doesn't change that the fact that they were able bring that out to assess the credibility of mr ward certainly that goes towards the sufficiency evidence in general but for this particular issue i don't think that this evidence of prior bad acts was admissible under four for  or a chemical definition in the indictment it's not just in the indictment i would think that's part of of what i think can be done to remedy what's happening here because this is a good old fashioned a pretty issue when i'm dealing charge them appropriately and you need to also instruct the jury appropriately and the jury verdict needs to reflect that they've considered this element of the offense i would submit that crack cocaine whether coke crack cocaine is the form of cocaine base base we know that's what they convicted on the expert talked about the difference between cocaine base and the cocaine powder so the question would be even if it wasn't charged specifically and then there different in the sense that people just assume the cocaine based on this talked about is crack cocaine and i have to concede that certainly there's testimony at the trial concerning crack cocaine that's true and that you know i can't deny that there was evidence about smokable forms of cocaine based which is the right sort of standard of leaf and also hard versus soft the pain and powder versus crack i understand that but the jury was instructions for manslaughter there's plenty of evidence on the record that this was actually first degree murder but the jury returns a verdict you know based on what was charged to the jury the instructions given to the jury the jury verdict is  records within the just just records ability to say well there's lots of evidence here about murder and other jury returned a verdict that technically says manslaughter we're going to say he's convicted of of murder rather than manslaughter and i use that analogy  what he's talking about is class i think that's sufficient for the evidence standard but the jury also needs to be instructed that and that's similar to what happens in the seventh circuit and i think you know and by all means i disagree with the seventh circuit often but fortunately there's a case that i can cite too but the point is that yes i think that's sufficient for evidence purposes for the jury to find that the cocaine involved in the case was crack cocaine  the type of cocaine that triggers the statutory that the increase penalties here and that's the bottom line here is you know really this could be solved very easily by simply adding another in an instruction for on the verdict form to include whether or not this is crack cocaine or some other on a cocaine base because cocaine based as we talk about comes in many different forms it can be a liquid form it can be in a paste form it can be very many many different types of o'kane based means well i mean in other words it wouldn't be here talking about this if we had a jury instructions that the jury knew what cocaine base was that's true and i haven't seen a pretty comes along and nobody changes their practice which seems odd to me because as you just now describe cocaine and crack could mean different things how in the world are we supposed to know that the jury was using the s the bottom line here though i think i to bring charges of trafficking and cocaine case based on substances that while they were cocaine and while they were technically scientific matter cocaine based were the smok do we know that the jury you know was that do we know for sure that the jury found that there was a crack and you're saying we have because that's what the evidence is but that's a different question than saying doing know for sure when we don't know for sure all course of dealings with the defendant the it was necessary to point out to his friends should show the jury the relationship between the two why they trusted each other what words were meant that if you got nine what is  the relationship between these two men and why they dealt with each other the way they did thank you thank you