actually think this is a simple and easy case for the court to decide i think really the only contested issue here is prejudice the government's conceded at least with respect to brady point is it doesn't we can't rely on our own story i think i understand your honor you're correct let me get to the facts of this case at trial the prosecutor stood in front of the jury and said that you have no evidence  the drugs were found we have a witness for the defense could have called who would have said there was methamphetamine in the duffel bag so we know that the representation that the prosecutor made to the jury is simply not one point i'm trying to make is california law does inform this question and you first have to know what the elements of the offense or under state law in order to determine if you're prejudiced that the point i am making is the mere fact that drugs are found within someone's home does not mean under california law that they are in constructive possession of those drugs and the case let's say for you this is found in my reply brief page ten people to show that this other person had the drugs when combined of course with the fact that the government conceals that the person very claim off jury don't don't believe that he had the drugs in fact they prosecuted this very  that doesn't look like he's merely possessing the drug it looks like he's a salesman if he's merely using it for himself he wouldn't have multiple brands so this jury never hears any of this the only thing they know about mr harrell is that it one time he got a motorcycle repair recently in a one time you got a traffic ticket it happens to be in a duffel bag and the government claims everything you can call an expert witness to sergeant morgan to testify good morning chris field for the respondent matthew kramer the first point that i would like to make is that that we would like to make is that the  declarations by the potential witnesses and the declaration by trial counsel do not support a failure to investigate kline the trial counsel says  crawford the obvious more logical conclusion from that is that mr crawford spoke to the potential witnesses and decided not to call them because they would not be beneficial to his client's ca the government does not concede agree that there is any that there is a deficiency problem in this case beyond that you know as far as the prejudice wrong is concerned petitioner is arguing the jury would have constitutes a reasonable probability that the result is proceeding would have been different the fact is he's in an eight hundred square foot apartment and there is a lot of other evidence of drug dealing that is directly tied to him in that apartment so the fact that there is a duffel bag under the stairs that he would somehow not have any kind of access to even if it belonged to mr her which  is just would go against the instructions would go against common sense and the rest of the evidence in the case i would submit if there are no further questions at this not correct to say as the government seems to assert that as a matter of law mr crawford is somehow guilty of constructively possessing these drugs because they are found in  say aha this person likes to coffee it must be their particular jerseys but what they don't know is that all three judges like to drink coffee so if the police know the full and complete story their cup of spouse mr crawford is guilty well if they do if he had known all of these facts about mr harris i think they undoubtedly would have had a reasonable doubt as to whether mr crawford had these drugs and again i hate to be redundant but in the duffel bag we find all of the indicia of the drug dealer we have a scale we have banking it's we have cut why would these groups belong to mr crawford why would he have