instead of the government using the relevant imposed bit of evidence from this case to try to show that the government was allowed to introduce inadmissible inflammatory and improper evidence in three separate areas to try to prove that number one the de confliction testimony number two the expert testimony regarding the meaning of the text message and the call logs and number three the rule for a four b evidence case agent k testified about the contents of the cell phone and he focused in large part on a text message which was received on the phone of mr a good o around the time of this incident and in his investigation of this text message the case agent put the phone number that the message came from into a law enforcement database and to see if it came up in any other cases  and the government asked him if it did and he said no it did not instead of then moving on to other evidence in the case the government asked case agent kerr if any of the other phone numbers in the telephone numbers which had no connection at all to this case error for the second question to be asked the question about the other unconnected phone numbers in the telephone but then the government quickly shifts over to a basically a no harm no foul analysis that this evidence wasn't really that prejudicial number one and number two that the evidence the trial of mr good those guilty was overwhelming and we disagree on on both fronts starting with the prejudice from this evidence i don't  it's much worse of someone is on trial in a drug in a drug case then for the government to say that contacts of his telephone are linked to other ongoing investigations and it paints the defendant not just as someone who about yes no equestria curative instruction whatsoever and the court what was the court's reaction to that again there was no reaction to the actual it just was out there and then the case went forward nobody said anything whatsoever the defense counsel to the judge right it had to get help and the government argued that it was people have a couple responses first of all i think this evidence very much stood on its own in terms of of its a fact and its power and i don't think this was something you need to be followed up on it was it was a very plain question a very plain answer and it and it unequivocally said that the numbers are his telephone ruling to other investigations being being prosecuted by the d a and then in terms of it not being argued later i don't honestly know how this could have been argue with a straight face by a by the prosecutor it was it was evidence it was clearly irrelevant it was evidence that that wasn't tied at all the facts of this case and so the fact that it wasn't argued in closing doesn't surprise me because i'm just not sure how this this evidence which sort of was out these cases in san diego are hard cases are often hard cases for the government to prove year in and year out these cases result in acquittals they result and hung juries because it's not always easy for the government to that he's focused on that the commercial a large quantity of drugs in a vehicle and basically the panel finding that if you're if you're driving a car and there's that much that big of a quantity of narcotics inside the car then that's strong evidence of you know and i but i think explain how this stuff got in your own car it was not his car he gave you plausible and viable account as to why he was let me interrupt i jotted down a few things which struck me as kind of supporting the notion that there was overwhelming evidence a guilty ever tell me if i got it down correctly dress well i know that he picked up the car after cause the border so it was not his car he risks they some sort of status he was driving at the riverside to get another call which turned out not to be so but i jotted down this he had  hundred forty thousand dollars of drugs elaborately hidden in the gas tank of the car that was driven across the border although by different driving the car had an overwhelming smell of gasoline the kind of explanation for how he came by the offices succeeded in folly came off the freeway despite not needing gas and less the defender was arrested for the identical conduct several years ago which you want to talk about i suspect when he's found driving across the border with drugs hidden in the gas like gasoline with respect to the way he drove there was there was no attempt to flee like the government tried to make it sound he was driving out i thirteen the agent was befalling him then drove next to him for a couple of miles then pulled in front of him he actually did you go  to the mobile convenience store and the agent pulled in behind over the fact he got out of his car and said to the age you know what's going on here i mean that's what anybody would say given the what the agent did in his mark to be a call on the interstate with respect to the statements  he gave the statements to the agent at that at the convenience store in english he doesn't speak english well he's a spanish speaker and there was some inconsistency is but but his story that he came across was going to go painting and they got the call and was going to take the vehicle up to and he said riverside versus downey it's sort of the whole los angeles area but that did not prove that proved that to be correct i mean i think they checked on that and that story was just a fabrication it's trial he talked about the fact that he was going to go to downey instead of going  riverside and so the statements warnings actually correct but but these cases never have perfect defenses so that it they never do there's always issues there and and of these cases always have large amounts of drugs like like the white head case talked about but if if if affected the outcome of this case because the evidence of the defendant's knowledge of the drugs in his car in this case was overwhelmed me just to address a couple of the points that we just went through the testimony was that the smell of gasoline in this car was overwhelming it wasn't consistent with that of an older car it was so strong that when the border patrol agent drove a short distance from the gas station to the checkpoint to for further inspection he said he had to roll down the windows because it was it was overpowering the other border patrol agent also testified that this was an overwhelming smell that caused her concern for her canine units health it was so strong so given that that smell and given the  defendant's erratic driving again this was not someone just pulling off of the highway the testimony from the border patrol agents was that once they got in front of him he cut across three lanes of traffic drove across the sort of land that separates the exit from the freeway and then even then once you got down the hill continued driving in sort of an aimless matter and cut across three more lanes and then parked next to a gas pump even though he admitted that he actually didn't need gas and that the gas tank was full in addition the defend in this case took the stand and you can read even the transcript of this defendant's testimony jumps out as incredible of the story that he told to the jury that essentially he couldn't cross his personal truck because initially claim the gas tank on his truck was broken and then he changed to say that registration was bad if you need to get smog test  then he admitted that a series of lies that he told the border patrol agents when he was first encountered taken together his testimony which the jury saw firsthand and could judge his credibility was essentially a disaster for this defendant so i think given that testimony given the the smell the quantity value his erratic behavior the shifting stories and the lies that he told the border patrol agents when he was encountered the evidence of his knowledge was overwhelming and any air would have been harmless as to the issues thank you thank your honor and this was another question detention at the border he's driving to be able to drugs in that vehicle he but the case will ultimately dismissed there was never any admission of knowledge never and never any advice unnecessary four four four be analysis you don't have to show that person was found