vehicle in the carjacking is the vehicle that there's certainly evidence to indicate that the deceased was in the trunk of that car and then that cars we covered and there's evidence in the trunk that she's been in there so it's pretty hard to say how that car you got to attach that car to your client and your client not the registered owner of that body was in that car not that much previously doing the carjacking so there definitely that car has to be tied and it's very inexpensively tied in so you don't really address how you know when jur it's found near her body in all of that i find it hard on the car they also don't recover a weapon and your client is in possession of a weapon there i think your best argument might be why did they have to prong generally when we look at prejudice it's not whether it's a i mean to you it has to be more like it inflames people to the point that he's charged with murder in a carjacking he should the person but she doesn't die so it's a much less terrible situation than that what he's actually charged with and it's also i think she she superficially handled her her shooting it was kind of you didn't you know and i guess what the prosecutor argues is that somehow that victim and her got killed because she was a snatch and there's a snitch element in the car but tell me about this inner twenty because that's a really important part about all did that would be one sense in the sense of limiting instruction may have been somewhat helpful but in this case the government was allowed to present the plea agreement to illustrate a cohesive picture to the jury and to the reference to the car but i hear you saying that the government had separately introduced evidence through i think mr culp's testimony that your client was seen driving the car i think it was  een at the crime scene with something being loaded into the trunk i think there's evidence that he bragged about stealing the car is your argument that the government could have painted its picture so to speak with that evidence  indicated that mr cope's made a conclusory statement that she was killed because she was a snitch that was not a statement that originated mr cope's mind those are direct words from the defendant at the crime scene at the time of the murder was that the reason he killed her was because she was a snitch so i just want to make that advises she used to feed him she advised that march th teen all of a sudden mr cloud shows up the property and he has this black car mr culp's testified that he also saw the black car and the defended admitted to him that he had got this car because he had carjacked christopher killed with a firearm so those are facts there were interviews that the trial the government's position is that those facts and we submitted to the district court were no strictly intertwined with the current offense and we relied upon this court's precedent dorsey in dorsey there was a gentleman who was charged with the card trafficking scheme and a witness who was going to testify a grand jury got shot at the trial for that shooting the government sought to introduce evidence that mr dorsey had a firearm several months prior to that crime metzger we know the defendant possessed the car in which her body or her blood was found in her d n a was found on the carpet fibers we heard testimony at the trial from patrick hope that the only person that ever drove the car at the bark's road road address was the to happen to him if he commits a shoplifting you think she's going to snitch to the police and that he's not going to kill or if he stole a car and there's a superficial wound or something he may not think he's going to kill her but he carjacked somebody and shot somebody presumably in his mind he's thinking i'm going to prison he's convinced himself that she's a snitch and what is he going to do about that to avoid prison he's going to do the greater harm bill her to remove the evidence that they are that's the government like you're sort of filling in some blanks that understand that that's what it was i kept looking for a moment of what was going on and a bigger picture i think that maybe not though they are we submitted to the district court to the district court that we argued that the motivation for the the motivation for the killing was that she was a cooperating witness a snitch regarding the going to allow you to admit that evidence as motive under for for b it's the discharge of the weapon that makes it so relevant to the motive for the killing it's the discharge of the weapon that's going to lead him to believe that this is the sentence this is what i'm going to go to prison for this is where i'm going in trouble with because not only did i carjacked somebody but a shot of a woman in her car that's the motivation for the  degree murder because of that crime that's why they had to commit the greater crime ok if it let's just say if in fact that was that maybe if we had a we analyze and he was charged with a carjacking and but you wanted to introduce evidence that he shot a woman in your bad several weeks before that would be more prejudicial the way we have it here could i go back to pierre sixty one i think that's part of the transcript you were referring to me minute ago i think it's the government saying to the court there's a little bit of a story in regards to the defendant saying he was involved in a crime wasn't arrested subsampling got arrested and he believed she had provided the information to the police but we don't know what exactly that person was talking about because we have no record of ms metzger ever cooperating with the police and the judge said is the government's theory that it's a that that was going on had to do with the car carjacking and your response was it's a possibility from our perspective it could have been the actual carjacking itself and he was afraid she was going to inform the police make sure they were safe that was the evidence that the trial two and three are really not issue here because all this happened in march of two thousand and sixteen in regards to evidence the defendant commit the crime he admitted that under oath so the whole issue is does it establish a material point and the government's position is that it does because that was his motive for the murder