essence for the fantasy of the internet it comes through of watching the store on the hard ground of reality here i don't have the most sympathetic client in the world you read these instant messages in my client's there's all kinds of things that are disturbing that express sexual deviancy he just doesn't come with completely clean and clean hands to those who order to the district court alternatively that the government did all kinds of things that are disturbing in this case as well there's no question that comes down to you should this highly prejudicial material have come in and if it should have come in was that error more harmless more likely than not harmful to mr john or smith that the answer to both questions is yes this should not have come in and yes the evidence is harmful therefore this case should come back to the district c i don't think that it does your honor for the only way that this evidence could have any relevance he starts pre disposition the law relatively clear that that predisposition must occur prior to agency contact here all this information that we're talking about came in during the instant message and message chats with the undercover agent pretending to be a fourteen year old girl so the f b i agent mr mahoney is talking to mr john or we have agent contact he says anything about john or exposing him so so neither of these parties have clean hands here and that's important to realize that was presented to the jury no question i think trent not exactly and this our whole the fence was entrapment and that's an important point not guilty because this affirmative defense with the government created this crime rather than myself going out there willingly engaging in this yes remember this is over three months for the cause it's like three months for the contact hours and hours and hours and been a forty year old woman pretending to be a fourteen year old rather than an f b i agent john or would still be guilty of the crime once he got on the plane but he could come here and freely have sex with the forty year old and not with him out so it's a very odd crime in that respect and it's one of the reasons why entrapment is a good defense in the situation because the jury's going to be troubled by the nature of the crime because the senate never has the time to back out we have a guy who has no criminal record he's never been arrested he's an accountant he's in his mid fort there is a chance a reasonable chance that had there been a real fourteen year old that he was presented with in person even to some look this is crazy i can't do it he never had that opportunity  of him exposing himself and remember there's like sixteen different photos that are introduced throughout this whole trial unpunctuated status that we never get any kind of serious constantly class these photos constantly seen these highly i find them very troubling and i because you have to ask yourself if i am free to is really what it says i'm predisposed to expose myself on the internet now does that speak directly to the question i'm predisposed to have sex with a fourteen year old is there if i just had that on for me i might have i'd have a much weaker case but i have a huge other point in my favor which is the defense counsel offered to stipulate that he sent these photos on the it to stipulate the facts of occurrence that he exposed himself on this want to show the jury the photos because they know it's going to promote this roller emotional response is going to make the jury jurors dislike john or it's going to make the jury's angry that they're having to sit there and be subjected to the sprint they're going to hold this case was not entrapment there was not an admission of the elements the defense of the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there's a suggestion and the argument that the only issue was entrapment however the because these pictures and images were chance to a fourteen year old or what they thought was a fourteen year old over a series of three three and a half months which culminated in a trip to nevada to engage that there was a fourth type which was he's snapped images of him on the web cam manipulating himself once again but was shown was not a moving image of the of the webcam but snapshot and there's about eleven twelve or thirteen of those who began this discussion and then i went back and forth and he alternately turned on the action there were two what i wanted to ask about in the main blend into each other but one assertion was made was that the undercover agent was the first one that it was an abuse of discretion and not harmless error to have allowed in the moving pictures because contrary to all chief this the moving pictures were not part of the narrative story of the crimes