is i think we all agree whether the jury would naturally add and necessarily take the prosecutor's remarks in this case as comments on the defendant's silence i think we're just we're just looking at the first tested but that the only witnesses that are provided testimony that were actually there that night are only eaten scums i was and serrano everyone else had no knowledge of what happened that night was information to offer that has circumstantial procrit force with why can't the other side stand up and say hey my witnesses with the only ones who were actually at the scene none of the others can contest what they to send an investigator to hask a does anybody here in this drug ridden high crime incident are willing to testify in front of the jail you know but that's that's not what we're left with you you just said there were no other potential witnesses all right the record but why is that because in addition to the other patrons let's leave them aside for a minute there's a bartender the defense counsel says in his opening statement to the jury is the response to i think if the prosecutor had done pretty much what your honor just suggested if they said well where's the park tender that he would have been perfectly acceptable but but putting it more broadly as all of the witnesses who are there are for the defense that leaves the only one left being excuse me with the prosecutor saying what he said in effect my witnesses had direct percipient knowledge of the facts you and the other witnesses who testified did not you've got it and it is right of course and and how these words and you make it you make a good argument that you could construe these words in the way you're arguing but we look at the transcript nobody who's sitting in the room in context with t here we have the situation where there's just he explained i'm having a little trouble here your honor you've also appealed in if you want to keep going on with this do be buswell healed on the translation the prosecutor and say objection your honor may we approach the bench that's the easiest way and that and no problem at all in this case there could've prosecuted can say that but is there any case holding that prosecutor must not take and here the action they must not take is basically to testify and that's what he did it well he certainly has a right to make an objection of course all right and there's no requirement that all here can we take this to sidebar or anything like that was contempt of the objection here so again we've got plain a review exactly and but that doesn't change the fact that first of all it's not necessary i  me how the prosecutor could handle it i gave one answer there are other ways the prosecutor could have done just say i stated the the prosecutor is not required to do it one way doesn't allow the prosecutor to do with the other way and there is no me to construe what the prosecutor did here as anything other than testify i agree it may it was at least bad practice for the defense lawyer not to object but it's plain than the prosecutor interjecting what he thought someone said ok i will address the translation issue first and that is your puerto rico obviously we have many objections to translation because most of our witnesses are spanish speakers so i would say seventy five percent of time we have a translator into court and as such all parties the judges the fence and the government do object to the translations and this case was about hitting first or second it's about basically the normal puerto rico in the norm is what we see in this transcript exactly exactly and outgoing asked to be more you know that's not the norm in other districts well and i pants on the judge also the pens of the judge there's judges that have a tighter handling of the court will and or others are more blacks and if you read through the transcript so in so in puerto rico it doesn't always happen this way it's this is this is the typical manner you can go i said that one one time the trance the answer was where we would be thank you no objection from the from the fence in the case of the the fence they stood up and said your honor we have to transition to be corrected and she stated the question was that the emphasized or you want to rest on your research for the rest i would like just to put it into context when this court needs to determine the context of my comment and he should do so in light of the context and defense counsel bases his argument in let only one thing your honor if this is the standard procedure in the district of puerto rico it's about time that the standard procedure in that district change the fact that something's done routinely