under the d j and the court appreciate your willingness to take the assignment of course please the court half way and i'm here for you thought the government should have just asked for a continuance even in a surprise for the release revocation hearing my client has rights the government is supposed to produce the witness for its allegations the government didn't and rather than simply asking for a continuance to do so the government tried to bypass my client's confrontation right under bell the government has to show two things just to show that practical to produce a material witness according to the government's own evidence she pretty bright an address less than three weeks prior to the hearing this address was within the district and it was within an hour or half from the courthouse the cases where the court  year prior to the hearing and in this case we have alleged crime alleged to have occurred only three weeks prior to the hearing like inside it was within that well within the district of the courthouse where government the person understood the doubt and the attempt had been made the witness of that case is the officer correct yes is there any other was there any other evidence other than much quoted in your brief as to whether any that it will it now are you said it was undesirable the produce was very solicitous but this runs contrary to what it argued that the distress at the detention at the revocation hearing and the other argument that are present that berry statements were on video right adi adieux and video so does that increase the reliability of her statements if you can actually see it and it's not coming through a report from the i suppose it could but i don't think by any means markedly enough to make it outweighed my client's confrontation rights in this case there were photos to work day that corroborate talking to the police or because she could for your punishment about lying to the police that it made her statements more liable but part of the police did not stop her from when the st time and the only as far as i'm going to speculate into her head for fear of punishment for lying to the police the only thing in the record we have to indicate any punishment that she would feel would be the punishment she received for the conviction of one to the police which was a nominal fine and knowledge of the deterrent i've morning your honor sir we salute him here appearing on behalf of the united states of america i want to correct the record on a few of the questions that came from the bench starting with the time frame between the nine hundred and eleven call and when police interviewed her the st nine  only two to three somewhere between two to three hours from that very st nine hundred and eleven call so the longest kind of stretch of time that we're talking about between initial reach out to police and the video interview was three hours not three and a half to four hours and that's in the record on pages five to sixty well let me tell you what it was my but what bothers me about this case is that it's two things you  i don't want to overgeneralize but domestic relations turby what domestic relations situations are ones that are rife for people saying things that aren't true about a person that they're having a fight with and then secondly she's already got a conviction for life to the police that's the one that really i think is is really by far the most troubling to me that if you've got somebody who's already been convicted of lying to the police you better darwell better produce that person as and it is not exaggerated when it is reported if anything women don't call the police when their partnership and so that is not a concern now addressing the continuance issue that's the other thing that i want to get to is the law violation they wait eleven days to provide notice that they're going to contest this issue but this this a state law violation i would be very surprised if one in any any defendant would admit to a state law violation in a federal revocation hearing or two that the government wouldn't understand that it's very unlikely that a defendant is going to admit defend it's make a decision that they don't want to fight these issues and federal court that they'd rather go back to state court where maybe they'll get a better plea deal maybe the state doesn't have quite the hammer that the federal government has so again i would push back on that notion that all the time that it's going to be department wednesday morning i emailed the subpoena to the officer who wrote the report and part of that is my i didn't understand that she was the training officer because a she was the officer who wrote the report  me officer because he was the training officer and this is all in the record i did proffer before this court because he was the training officer she was out at training and he did not receive my e mail i did not receive a response from him of any type on wednesday take the subpoena and get served and that's on thursday they went out and they made at least one attempt to locate mr barry at her residence where the assault took place and serve the subpoena on her but when they made at least one attempt and that's unclear if they made one  excuse me more than one but what is clear is they need at least one attempt to serve her at her home they could not locate her to serve her with a subpoena and then the hearing was the next day yet the government could have asked for a continuance i'm not going to say but you've just jumped to the reliability so you know you can have a decent argument that maybe this was well within the time period of of the nine hundred and eleven call we've got a video you could make a number of arguments about reliability but i don't think that that goes to whether it was impractical or inadvisable to get her in person that's the those are separate arguments but it's not an either or i would submit that  so you're saying a reliable reliability can make up for lack of effort yes your honor it seems like our case law says you have to have both i don't know what that i've read in the bleeding that you that is there can you point me to some language where we've said that that that you had to have both but one can influence the other i mean i i would argue that expensive he's not here if he's out but we could we could in every case but we don't have to because the testimony so reliable because we know what he's going to say and so i guess that would be another example  testimony that is a political in any situation are you talking about testimony about a particular slant patch i mean i don't seem to be different it kind of i mean it's i'm talking about the broader scientific testimony but but the analysis is the same right i mean we believe that that evidence is so reliable that we don't need the government to to proffer reason really other than it's too expensive i mean but in those cases he has testified and he's been subject to cross examination so you have you have you have that and you also don't coupled with the fact that she previously was convicted of lying to you if you've been pretty the doctor previously been convicted of lying to the police i think you have a whole different case and i didn't get a chance to address that the district court was aware that she had been previously convicted and did put on the record why she found that that still that the court believed that her state was still reliable and and thought about those issues and so shown the other aspect this is just something that we have not emphasized enough i think in their reply brief and i want to get into the record is that with the arguments that are being made about the reliability dance as to damascus all of the kind of had one theory and one allegation for child endangerment and that was that a domestic salta been committed and this had been done in front of children and the government does not even propose a good argument for corroborating the chill tie that aspect of this the only thing in the