a quick summary of the facts that show the court's concerned this particular defendant was stopped twice at the border and i've told her consecutive days each time she had to illegal aliens in her car and each time she confessed that she was smuggling  for money she was not prosecuted too much later three months later she came back and said this time she was smuggling drugs and she was prosecuted she took the stand in her drug trial and said my difference is i'm not a drug smuggler i'm an alien smuggler i thought i was smuggling aliens just like the two prior cases and she did it for confessions to those two prior occasions on the stand for the judge the jury under oath and her attorney present at that point the government filed a complaint charging her with those you know out of the fact that she took the stand had nothing to do with our decision as a prosecutor what made us prosecute her was the content of what she said a judicial confession under oath with her attorney present tremendously improve the quality of our proof and to it's something we just can't walk away from we can't have people confessing their crimes and just not being prosecuted a lot of people would say you shouldn't walk away from two consecutive violations when they find elian hiding in your car and let her walk away from that that that is truly one of that that is obsessed traditional allocation of resources you that we deal with all the time we'd love to do every i have no reason and nothing i say here today is meant to indicate that i don't believe what they said nothing here i said it is meant to mean that i think it is something improper or wrong i don't like the way it looks that i think are the kind of facts the north carolina be pierced and black which and those are those are both cases where the defendant exercised some right that caused the trial there already been completed to be completely redone and the supreme court said you know so i can see at the same table only charge her with drug importation and possession with intent to distribute marijuana on the month of april the case on the drug trial began again the government did nothing about d n a smuggling charges the government then eventually rested sit on experience as a judge he said cases in this district are prosecuted and are proven and those words just words are proven on much less than what they had when they arrested i'm not saying that that is just because that is why this circuit requires the government to come in with it with an explanation and i'm going to give you an example the case relayed by the government baker in baker at the fellow was charged for being a felon in possession of a the case work this is jenkins just taking on the stand and testifying about all the crime and now saying tell the government you can't prosecute me for this crimes because the government knew about those crimes and they have her confession of those crimes in baker the confess to a crime growing testimony and then prevent a prosecutor from from initiating initiating criminal charges against that person and all other cases that are used the should mention or tina's the government brought up she made it part of her defense and one thing that the government mentions throughout its prefer is that look if there are two related on two separate charges the presumption cannot arise as i said this charges  isn't that just as likely to children even more likely to kill testimony than when you tell them about something they already knew well that is why the court requires that the government come in with a objective not pretextual reason in order in order to justify the new charges but when the reasons art are not there when when there is not when there has not been embedded to real change in circumstances that properly bear in  but when defendants testify and talk about crimes they have committed ninety some percent of the time they're going to be crimes a government didn't know about and the government's going to be free to charge him and i would think that's just that's sufficiently chills defendants from testifying to crimes and we don't prohibit the government from prosecuting in the years and this co so this court has said look we're not going to give we're not going to give purity it will not allow someone to testify about a crime with impunity not expected to be not expected to be prosecuted but when the government knows about it when the person has already told smuggling charges when they arrested her on the drug charge and nothing that was not a material change they had now in court testimony we probably don't have a case that was ninety nine point one percent wrong much less than what they had against mrs change it's they had no doubt and they they had a very solid case against her they had they did not have the slightest doubt on the strength of their case long behold she testifies about the other smuggling the practical result of judge when  that can't be the case that a case that's not what the prosecution theory is all about isn't there an element here that basically and i think you've sort of alluded to it by saying you couldn't ignore it that it was all right if she confessed at the border but when she confessed in court it was sort of in the face of the government and they had to prosecute but there is a bit of an element of that isn't there and there i think was in the face of the court and the government put the point that i