ever answer the phone and did not ever give the phone to my client this confidential informant told the jury admitted that he barely knew charles stephenson had only seen him a few times and had only  voice to say hi and yet he testified that he recognized this person on the other end of the line as charles even friends and in my mind your honor that is not sufficient evidence for a jury to time tell the confidential informant your client was a supplier well as the evidence came out your honor the molly man rathke talked about my dude my man my speedy think that they had a relationship you know they had been in a relationship kind of an off and on relationship your honor i think there was some actually some testimony if i recall that enforcement themselves testified that they kept the house under surveillance where mostly men rascal was residing and they were even through the trial stevenson was in there they didn't see him come come in or out and he may not even have been in montana for all they knew your honor in and the jury basically must have reached their decision in passion and prejudice because there was simply not enough evidence for them to convict my client there were four hand to hand sales between  undercover agents including law enforcement and at no time was my client present for any of those sales further questions on that issue i'd like to turn to the issue of the  in this day and age of sentencing guidelines which are creatures of the law i believe it's still fair to say that the ancient principles of equity also apply and even though legally speaking had we mounted a defense against those three dismissed counts we could disabuse the judge of that notion conceivably even though  arguing that certain evidence was introduced improperly and we're arguing that certain instructions were improperly written and given to the jury with regard to the evidence that was methamphetamine on four separate occasions her defense was solely the issue of in fact she alleged that she was not guilty of the conspiracy count because the only other person involved was charles stevenson and that charles didn't know anything about any of these sales that she was involved with the question then there's about the ecstasy tapes which was an entirely unrelated investigation and entirely unrelated case been in involved in these drugs and they said that they were introducing this for impeachment purposes however many racks chris said from the very beginning in her initial  story that she was involved in the sale of drugs the information that the government relies on and in her statement is her representations that she had not been involved in the sale of drugs prior to the time that she met the confidential informant and that is the sole context in which they intended to impeach and it's not proper impeachment because it was beyond the scope of the direct examination because that was information that the defendant had specifically requested  second issue concerns income tax records of charles steven in their cross examination only manner axa the government asked her if she was supporting him or he was supporting her and she answered that that he was basically supporting her while she was going to college in california on that basis they introduced the evidence of income tax records of charles stevens income tax records that they had that they had not the third evidence reissue concerned the probation officers file and again she had asked for this international discovery she'd asked for the supplemental discover it she made a motion to compel and that motion to the probation officer testified he brought his probation file with him to the to the courtroom he referred to it and we were not allowed the defense was not allowed to inspect that file or to look at it in any manner shape or form the judge at a conference outside interest conference indicated that he wanted the probation officer to go through the file and to  tell the defense of what was in it and think answer the questions about no meaningful information was provided with regard to the probation file in that conference this is a clear violation of is an essential part of the whole defense of entrapment issue of whether or not she was involved with ecstasy sales what kind of inducements the government was giving to the confidential informant in order to provide his cooperation in this case those kinds of issues are the only issues really involved and in  the next issues involved of the jury instructions concerning conspiracy and the definition of knowingly our contention is that the definition of knowingly by the parting from the which is incorrect your honor and that's why we believe that the court did not accuse its discretion it's one of those things that turned from an analysis for all for the pretrial all of the sudden a impeachment by contradictory testimony or evidence at the time of trial and we divulging it previously including payments of sixteen thousand dollars total first work not only in this case but other cases so the the tax records is an issue that's the scary issue i would've been trying the case i don't  that's wrong and i think it's both of them had the same meaning in the same import in this particular case that you're hon also charles stephenson but others known and unknown and the evidence in this case shows that he brought the dope up from california clearly there may have been other people not identified therefore the jury was intitled to have those instructions if you consider very briefly your honor any issue of the fish and see the evidence the confidential informant simply was not in a position to identify charles stevenson acknowledging that he had only heard his voice on  with regard to the the initial question that was asked of molly even rascal with regard to whether or not she had used any hard drugs the context quot by the judge there is clearly that she was being asked about what had occurred prior to november of two thousand when she first met the confidential informant otherwise your initial statement  acknowledged selling drugs from the beginning would have made absolutely no sense mr score also referred to a statement that she had made with regard to the fact that after she had met cut after the proceedings with him were concluded she had been involved with selling methamphetamine cocaine are products that question was asked but it had nothing to do with by the government on cross examination and finally with regard to ending and bedding as mixing them in the conspiracy are contingent here is that the not that aiding and abetting that one cannot aid and