outset of deliberations that the recording should not go back to the jury jury deliberations as it was never published during the course instead of with submitted to the jury and it introduced at trial without judge sent it back to the jury actually think requested that he again instructed them as he at the close up of the case that they were not to use their knowledge of the spangle let's suppose we've got this jury with at least two spanish speakers on it and we've got witnesses testifying from the witness stand you spanish with simultaneous translation and the same instruction case the presumption what hole there be nothing to suggest that when they were when the trial court instructed them don't rely on your only that they did it right but here the fact that they asked for the record during deliberations when it's nice to meet there's really nothing the recording could could provide them when they were required to follow the transcript and one of the issues that came up in this context was one of the probably the biggest issue in terms of discrepancies between the trial testimony from the stand and what was on the transcript with the government foreman who talking about a potential future heroin transaction with mr marshall but that was nowhere in the record in actually what the government did in his direct examination was they kept trying to bring him back to a spot on the transcript where there was unintelligible and he kept saying no no no it was this portion of the transcript where dr johnson picked up everything that was said to be wrong with the jury asking for the audio so it could listen as to whether or not that they heard that particular phrase even the english speakers who have no idea what it needs the informant on the stand testified i said it just wasn't picked up on the audio so why wouldn't it be logical was the recording that was introduced at trial and my point is you don't have to have knowledge of the spanish language all you're doing is listening for  i understand and i think it comes back to that wayne what about consideration of the transcript if they did that if they apply that strength that instruction and they looked at the transcript where there wasn't even an unintelligible portion that he's talking about that's critical they would have drawn the it and the majority of what you've identified you didn't object where you did have jack to it that just reports the strange objects many times and it struck to the jury to disregard it and i think there was only one statement that granted a mistrial on the basis of testimony given without objection i'm trying to argue that's one piece of it there were also objections made along the same topic and some s have placed a court just for sort of term the defendants conviction because the defendant received a fair trial start with the issue of the spanish language recordings that went back to the jury if the recording as transcripts were made it into evidence initially the recordings did not go back to the jury and the jury asked for them the government agreed that they should go back and that the court should instruct the jury with respect to the spanish language issue on those recordings and the district court did there are multiple reasons the jury could have wanted to cure those recordings for instance counsel just indicated that there are various in january there ambient sounds and noises car alarms traffic other things to concern with all of that is relevant to the context of the transcript from the translations as well as the credibility and accuracy of the transcripts and the con not every statement made outside of it's hearsay it also has to be offered for the truth of the matter asserted in this case there were meetings that took place prior to january th two thousand and seven seen transaction and so it reflects there's two ways to approach it as the district court judge explained there in a vehicle going to meet someone and so when one of the person says that's the person it's logic that dictates oh that must be more it would have bumped him up to a higher mandatory minimum and the reason that were the way that happened is that's just what he had grown or i can only charge him with what he had and that's what came back with unfortunately  and at the time i think my office was operating under something called the holder memorandum which sets look at various factors and charging whether to charge someone with a mandatory metal whether they have a significant criminal history whether leader organizer whether memorandum the sessions memorandum issued and that instructed prosecutors to charge the most serious offense readily provable and so what happened is that by that time pictures should tell us a complete this ration done what we somewhat in this case and in this record where you have a superseding indictment against mr marsh on the sentence because he did not agree to plea after the sessions memorandum came out the point of this your honor is that to explain that reduced sentence that a further reduction began but wouldn't it be if if you think you're going to face ten years as a mandatory minimum and less should cooperate with the prosecutors and if you cooperate the judge can sentence you below that mandatory minimum wouldn't deko don't rackley to whether to the motivation as to why the witness might be fine your honor it's a question of degree at the end of the day it's still would just confuse and mislead and become a problem in and of itself for collateral issue because the defendant already had the opportunity to extensively cross examine them on a fifty percent reduction recommendation as well as other bennett's benefits that he