at any point at any time and i argue that this is prejudicial not just because of that it's the natural tendency of this evidence to spill over and suggest that if this person is guilty of the same cri more than a tendency to tell the jury you have to question this person's credibility but the instruction this court requires is an instruction that sends the fact that he pled guilty  be overruled without the limiting instruction and i believe that's the wall of the circuit that you cannot is the trial judge say over ruled and not give a limiting instruction this evidence is inadmissible without a limit think that would be perfectly fine and i think that's true with a lot of the things that i suggest here that it's not that there was no way to get this stuff in had i mean this guy is yes yes second occasion was in closing argument when the prosecutor said talking about dr will king he took responsibility for his part in the scheme suggesting that you know that hilty  was him taking responsibility and the others didn't take responsibility even though he clearly admitted that he was involved and therefore they were  he was indicted on a charge of health care fraud not conspiracy and he pleaded guilty to one count of health care fraud and i would know too that the defendant did not object to the admission of the guilty plea itself into evidence even though the court indicated it wouldn't be admitted substantively so that was a choice strategic choice that defense counsel made at the time the court said no i won't admit the plea agreement which attached to it was the information which was the charging document against doctor  and the defense that i have no problem with that and the government's reading of the transcript suggests that that might have been an intentional decision given the way the cross examination in the closing argument played out which was the defense attacked dr wilkins credibility vigorously and also created a theory for the jury an argument for the jury that he had acted alone he asked numerous questions of dr will trying to isolate his conduct to say did you tell the defendant that you were signing these forms that you needed help because you were feeling overwhelmed t tried to create a situation an argument for the jury where he could distance him self from dr wilkins and what he had done and that seems to be his theory of the case and that was certainly presented to the jury in that way  closing so that's the reason for the government's argument that there could have been a strategic choice and in light of that it would have been proper for the district court to have offered a limiting instruction that could have done more harm than good to the defense  could interfere with a plausible strategic choice by defense counsel language so whether it could should or whatever standard that is i think plausible strategic choice and of course the district court is presiding over a trial and listening to the evidence and hearing what's happening that wouldn't be proper necessarily to jump in at any moment based on its own thoughts about how the trial should go  read the definitions and she did she was also asked to explain how medicare billing procedures work when the defendant had acknowledged in signing up to be a medicare health care provider she simply explained to the jury how the system works and she was not permitted to do more that is that's the reason for drawing that distinction and her brief is that she really didn't testify as to an opinion which is different from of course the other witnesses who did provide i believe two maybe three primary care providers and so the and again these are different witnesses and they were asked different questions but in general the testimony proceeded as to the nurse did you visit this patient what did you observe i observed that he wasn't home for example when i arrived or that he had gone on vacation to puerto rico for a month to visit his family and then the question would be essentially homebound and the nurse would test no so that's the opinion of the nurses to homebound but also as noted in our brief that nurse had no knowledge of what medicare's definition of homebound meant and that wasn't put to her the question was not put to her as your you know what medicare means therefore can you tell us whether for sure this defense objected to this to a question like that and the court as aquatics plain as the government believes in offering this evidence the point was to give some context for what the nurses and the patients and the primary care physicians opinions were and what their facts were that they observed so the nurses talked about the patients and how they saw them when they saw and then the jury was also presented with the assessment forms that seem to reflect something different so in order for the jury to understand how the observations of the nurses and how the patients themselves felt and to compare that to what was reflected on the forms it was helpful to the jury hear how the nurses use the patient and how the patient needed him or herself so that's the purpose of the testimony was the government opposed that not because it would have been proper in general but that this particular witness proposed was not because he didn't have managed to have sufficient experience medicare home health care regulations so he was not an expert in that field which is why a district court did after it average hearing did not permit him to testify but simply offering that kind of competing expert testimony the government would not object that it would be