detail right and our economy case says it doesn't have to be done in detail and may tell me if i'm mischaracterizing the case right i think ok so i think to you ok so tell me why that case doesn't control expert you know how much is this valued at but basically covered everything but the value i think for pointing out of the problem is is that a doctor hearing of course that's a different issue the reliability reporter and i don't think it put the burden on the defendant take it up position one day before trial to learn information that's supposed to be disclosed weeks before and i think that would be the onus that we'd be putting on  i'm supposed to suppose you're right i just want to figure out exactly what we're reviewing here the way i view the case and you can disagree as the district court did presume or assume assume for the sake of argument that there was a violation here and then said what i'm going to do the remedy i'm going to order is disclosure and an hour break for a watch so that you can think about the disclosure and i think your argument then is the district court should have done more and excluded that testimony altogether so really the question then becomes and i don't know if this framing is right did the district court abuse its discretion by not ordering a remedy that was greater than the remedy that the district court ordered and that's precisely right ok and the started because he said what the government are going to close and why was prejudicial was that mr custer couldn't afford these drugs without someone and that sixteen hundred dollars was a far too great of a sop for someone like mr castle who was unemployed argument was well he was an addict he was going to use all his resources to pay for any amount of drugs just for himself and i think there is other evidence that supported that notion in that the other tools of trade  show even if you had earlier notice he would have been forced you could force its exclusion or do a more effective defense so what do you fit on those two products i think you're right certainly the motion for continuance and i have to concede that that you have kept the evidence al to were presented a more effective defen no i think what the case of the court is trying to say if you had earlier evidence then could you have kept it out or presented a more effective defense yes your so what do you file on those two i think those two are the pre conditions for prejudice yes i think stuff i mean had we known in a timely fashion we put a hard on expert to harry and what's not sixteen hundred dollars it's eight hundred dollars or whatever we could get a expert early say be asked but asked what was the street value for fifty seven grams of and at that point i recognize the jury wanted to hear about the the dollar figure if you go through the transcript you'll realize that in the pretrial hearing that wasn't termed a dollar hearing that happened the first morning of trial i never asked about the street value of methamphetamine that wasn't our game that wasn't our course and it wasn't in any of the grand jury transcript either i had focused on the weight of the stiffing and that this weight was a distribution weight and not a user weight it was not until the juror question came out that it became apparent that we needed to answer that question and that's when appellant counsel maybe an action before lunch knowing that that witness was going to testify and he raised the issue regarding the dollar figure and i believe it's page two forty two district court did enough not whether the district or did nothing at all because just record to provide a remedy in our case law suggests that the remedy of ordering disclosure and giving some time to consider the disclosure might be argued that there was enough time but the that's really the question is whether the district believe your testimony here today however your initial notice says dollar amounts of method to me the notice yeah the original order stands by saying that he's going to be an expert and he's going to testify on the dollar amounts of methamphetamine transcript what i'm pointing to that i had only elicited testimony from detective nightingale in that pretrial hearing related to weight and his experience in the various units and how much time how many cases were methamphetamine related cases and what percentage were dealer cases purses possession cases those sorts of topics so the remedy i agree the court gave the proper remedy and initially is just wrong as pointed out there was all of this other proof there was the weight of the testimony related to methamphetamine over fifty grams and distribution  of the methamphetamine weight of over fifty grams versus the smaller amount of marijuana of only roughly seven or appellants flight from law enforcement at high rates of speed enviable on foot and then further resisting the officers the fact that he had no care finale at the fact that the medical records of the defendants met medical records he made a statement where he admitted to using alcohol and tobacco but denied using   for a for be evidence of the defendant's hired missions that he was dealing with seven grams of mat a day in northeast kansas city one week of that is roughly fifty grams and forty nine grams of methamphetamine so that is of this additional evidence that we have the defendant's previous statement when he possessed one point seven five grams of math that he intended to distribute part of that and i mean as well also had the defendant's own witness mallory dummett who on cross examination i asked her if related to their obtaining meth and and she admitted that she in the defendant i'm various occasions would go out obtain methamphetamine and share us distribution that she admitted her in the defendant were doing together so we have all that other evidence separate from the street value of meth and that it so i agree that the the remedy w appropriate and that the public could have asked for and chose not to ask for it you chose not to ask for a continuance the friday before trial they chose not to ask for a continuance that monday morning when we had this pre trial hearing that detective nightingale testified at he also chose not to seek the continuance when the dollar figures were disclosed during the lunch hour even if it was just asking for a day or a half a day to go undisclosed evidence the enter any other order that is just under the circumstances and the district court did a combination of these we complied with those at each step of that event appointed to the main cases that the government is concerned with the contrary case that the district court does not abused their discretion by had many experts expert witnesses testimony when government's notice of intent the basis for the testimony or not explained it at what point is there the line where we have to turn over essentially our direct examination and that's part of what the exchange was  admittedly on my behalf not always artfully so during the trial but what i was trying to say is i don't have to give you my direct examination i've put you on notice for all this i've answered all of the questions i've given  we've gone through his direct testimony before you before trial started that mine seems we seem to be far past that gave the three grand jury transfer so i gave him all of these ground factually speaking opposing counsel says i understand i didn't make this that trial counsel didn't make this request at the at the hearing or didn't didn't did make an examination at the hearing but were there other times that day defense counsel sought out the information and specifically asked you what it's a detective going to say about the street amount of the drugs you know he did and in fact in that polokwane right before lunch mr moss said i specifically asked for theirs and i responded right ok so i think your debrief sort of are my only confusing because i think very well no no i'm not criticizing i'm just saying because the i think what you're calling the first day of trial immediately prior to jack to the nightingales expert you're calling the second day counting the minute the court orders them to do so they provide that information i don't think that's what that the document you were reading was that was that a request from defense counsel to the prosecution to get the evidence or what exactly were you reading that's the bennett's response to the seven to two notes ok her question the remedy that i think it says exclude his testimony because it's insufficient but you don't say dollar amounts in fifty do you is document fifty your document did you initiate fifty yes in there does talk about the dollar values about the benefits and that's part of their notice we didn't say please tell us right now what the dollar amount is but we think the issues you know