and for the government from the date that he was arrested from the date that he was arrested and that the government had an extreme bargaining position over him  trial and then we had to go to trial and then i trial when he made a motion to not allow the government to admit the testimony of the material witness or the statement that he himself made was a confession there with there was a confession in this case but as i pointed out there were some circumstances regarding the confession that i think led to this that were led to an involuntary confession and was be on  about five hours later yes it was pretty prompt but they had his wife our custody they had his wife in custody they had his brother in custody and he was told that if he did not speak and make a terms of the material witness statement the agent actually testified about what the material said at his interrogation the material witness just like a defendant is a arrested and detained and  interrogated and in this case he was interrogated for two reasons one to prove that he himself was committing a crime of illegal entry and two that he was being smuggled in to the country by mr s i don't believe that mr solo is that he was a citizen many cooks and this just lawyer didn't have the personal knowledge i believe that he said that he did bring this person across the border but he didn't testify about his  citizenship status you know bargain in this case with me left their office before we could resolve the case because i think you recognized that his office was in the wrong when they offered him a plea bargain two different times by two one of the underlying themes is was the delay undertaken intentionally to give the government the other thing is the record again there are very few gaps here the testimony shows that ten forty pm october seventh authentic comes into the port twelve fifteen october eighth in the morning his first devised his miranda rights but there's not enough agents to interview that would have been impossible really if you want to get in on the afternoon calendar you have to see the judge between twelve and one again the people who are here wasn't on until three fifteen and i believe the other shows that the complaint wasn't done until eight o'clock that night that   even though he didn't he denied having told mr laurean that the facts were that by the time that he had his case to interview he had all the witnesses interviewed at twelve o'clock that's when he released the wife and the brother he testified to that at the trial on january sixth and that transcript page one sixty he testified that that's when he let the wife and the brother go so i think the court has to look at the voluntarin declarations that they had never offered a five forty five which is importing merchandise into the united states you know in a case like this there were other alternatives that we could have done we could have done a false statement which would have gotten everybody what they wanted soria would have done in jail he wouldn't have been necessary automatically deployment ported that would government would have gotten commission i was on the record counter offered that and i believe that there was evidence in the record too that he bargaining that he knew that if he lied that could be used against him in terms of whether or not he met his part of the bargain that's demonstrated by the prosecutor telling the district court well we'll get him to l well i think that the government's subsequent promise just to give him that to give him of the fire in that was later that was later that was after the plea after the interviews and the information that he gave the government proffer in which case we have an issue of how about the documents you signed or the promises were after the proffer in which case having rely on it well i think that the detrimental reliance was i think going to  arguing that it was accepted as soon as he gave them the information and they as soon as he gave them the information and they agreed it they clearly don't want to let him go ahead and and under under the guise of substantial cooperation and he gave them other rest of the information that they needed in order to prosecute the case and the bell had already already been rung it was no way that he couldn't go forward with that  and then with regards to the government stating that there was invited to air the only the rest of the statement that the material witness gave that is just a about whether or not how much and whether or not he was going to pay for his crossing into the united states and so i don't see how that's invited or if we're before just want to say ok this is the whole thing and part of that is  relies on was before crawford and i think that this property elevates my client's right to compel this witness to a substantial constitutional right and you can't just rely on