handgun the pistol was found in the a c vent in a common area of the home that mr cole shared with another person he was not the only person on the lease the other person cynthia cole had a separate bedroom and also lived in that home there were no fingerprints on gun or on the ammunition or on the magazine inside the gun the officers two officers also in palmer officer also admitted that he never saw the defendant cold with the gun that was actually found in the in the air conditioning vent he did say that he saw an african american arm in the window holding what he thought to be a revolver which is a different weapon the semi automatic this is actually  officer palmer similar testify similarly testified that he saw an african american armed with the life he thought to be or what he said could have been a semiautomatic officer palmer didn't give a report so we're just relying on his testimony at trial early in the in the day homer bryant had said that he was threatened in traffic by cole and that cole at that time was brandishing a dark large frame revolver again a different cynthia cruz the other rocking the occupant of the home cynthia cruz according to the informal offer of proof made by defense counsel had stated that she did have a gun she didn't specifically say that she had that gun that was found but she did say she had a gun in the house so that would have been relevant to the there's actually an issue that evidence was excluded by the district court on hearsay ground i know of that's not mine so any other statement she made was pretty equivocal it's hard to exactly understand why those would be statements against interest well we're not sure we don't have the actual statements  the record your honor that the district court did allow the defense counsel to make an informal offer proof that according to defense counsel she said that she knew that the gun that she did have a gun in the house  we how else would we know we have the prosecutor supposedly quoting from the transcript we don't have the transcript before the judge as far as we know that's true and let me just step back for  maybe address this in a more than a more general way the motion in limine ways was filed with the court if i think you nine pm the day before the nine o'clock trial defense counsel didn't receive the motion in limine until that morning when he was in state court managed to scribble some notes on the back of it and then come to court and argue it so intensive of the defense counsel presentation of the arguments and to the extent that there are somewhat deficient i think they can be explained by the short notice that i but that's not really that the issue on appeal isn't that somehow the judge short circuited the defense counsel in presenting his pleas is that i mean you are saying is that we what we have in front of us is what what the district judge heard so i don't think there would be any legal basis first just to kind of go back and try to recreate what he might have heard if you didn't hear it going with you we can't recreate what he might have heard but here i think the better for cesar would have been and  that's not a point that you're challenging and that is the procedural aspects so i'm not sure that it would be appropriate for us to even consider what might be better practiced i think in an light of everything that happened at the because the court could look at that it's plain air under its authority to do so i'm going to go ahead and reserve the rest of my time thus the court has other question best we have therefore declarant crews in an unsworn statement saying she might have owned a gun she might have possessed the gun it's unclear from the record whether this is even the gun charged in the indictment it's also as the judge the human correctly pointed out if she has no criminal record perfectly lawful for her to possess a gun and finally under eighteen u s c nine twenty had reason to believe that the gun was stolen and in this case assuming we can even figure out what gun crews allegedly possessed there's no evidence that crews knew or had reason to believe that that gun was a prong of a declaration against interest and i would submit that defendant does not pardon me that appellant is not the statements do not clearly indicate the circumstances pardon me do not clearly indicate the the trustworthiness of the hearsay statement why because those circumstances indicated that the statement was not on taney as in or a piece of the court noted the statement was not spontaneous because it was made after the declarant like in the present case had been jailed and arrested same thing employers clear corroboration lacking because the statements were not were not made in a spontaneous manner here  trying to do a little follow up on your arrest last night i wondered if you would talk to me about it these are the kinds of circumstances that the ninth circuit has held clearly demonstrate reliability and for all of those reasons and for those set forth in the answering as to whether or not there is additional corroborating circumstances for the death of the aid of corby three hearsay exception to apply and i think courts can go both ways on whether this sort of custodial interrogation is likely to produce truthful statements or not i would suggest in this circumstance that the that it was that they were the circumstances that would produce the produce the truthful statement to the will there were some other cases here and i was hoping the court would inquire davis versus washington didn't come out until two weeks after the opening brief was filed and that's the case where the united states supreme court makes it clear that under certain circumstances calls to nine one one and in this case we have the radio calls to the dispatch that and into a trial and in this case what happened is similar to what happened in your case in the mills your honor where you had the government come in in the first trial and put the lions on the stand in all the bad circumstances surrounding that relationship came out in the second trial the government didn't call bryant and instead launder his testimony through the radio dispatches through the written statement comments on the written statement that were read into the record testified to you repeatedly  by the witnesses so instead of having the unsavory brian character testifying to having seen cole with the gun we have this week you clean officers talking about it i'm not sure that