i just rode through it to three i think those c d s or have been here before so you know to rules in terms of the lights and so full of i would just say it keep your voices up and stay in a microphone so we can hear you  it was disguised to the extent that the law enforcement officers at the scene were not able to identify the presence of drugs simply under the deal what they had to rely on to identify that there were drugs present but there are extensive legal training and scientific testing when you say testimony was that it appeared to be a bar or so but if you broke it or carved into that it was about how substance that to be dangerous to to handle that way and so it appeared and sank to be soaps commercial detectives and as i stated that officers on the scene needed to be learned extensive experience regarding drug trafficking and also in scientific testing to determine if there were drugs present i'm sorry to interrupt again but the real unusual facts to me a hundred fifteen kilos of meth yes in that you know two hundred fifty pounds perhaps it was it was it was a large bag those large quantities the vehicle that checkpoint was that the driver was going to open a laundromat and that's why there was such a need for a large quantity of commercial soap and detergents and at trial ms martin his ostensibly but they may have been drugs we don't know because my client was told the same story the night before she was told the day they were arrested is that she wasn't i'm sorry  nobody went to look for it our point at trial was that we believe that the codefendant got away not only with a lighter sentence but also with a previous load of drugs that she was able to more harmful or prejudicial than it was probably but that didn't get you over the hump per se whether they need it or not i mean it's prosecutors charge that put it in its center but be sure atika miss me that the government's case  trial counsel i was or i was i'm not sure i mean i hear what you say and i don't think it's a relevant city issue as much is you know in the balance is drug or narcotics violation and they didn't prove that on every occasion that many of those there's a book smuggling often succumbs down they didn't prove that and the prayer book script apparently she put her sister in jeopardy if you believe her sister's testimony as occurred is it possible that some people on the jury could think that the sisters didn't get along i suppose that's possibl discount the testimony to some extent i suppose it's possible that to make the connection that since he's there testified at trial and that she was and that because the sister was couldn't convicted of the options that there was some sort of animosity guideline range even if she had pled guilty she would have been looking at the same guy like a range of leave because she had some private state cases other than the extrinsic of ins that was introduced at trial and again your honor on top of the fact that the government before the codefendant change a story various times at one point she said that she was working alone and that mr lee had nothing to do with it and then she changes stories and she was going to pay my claim that's all that's all credibility yes your honor that's all credibility but starts because the government is the testimony from the codefendant that my client had an extensive criminal history and therefore we believe that her right to due process of law was violated because she was not able to get a jury trial whereby she was approved she does have these extremely often says she does have this extensive criminal history but in this instance she was not acting in conformity with a character and so we believe that the government unduly shift the burden to my client and we believe she was harmed these are constitutional believes that those pongs the beach of easily satisfied intent is always an issue with the court nose and a drug trafficking case and hereby martinez's guilty plea not guilty plea she put her intent in issue one that occurs just court has held repeatedly the admission of extrinsic evidence is justified and it satisfies the first prong of beach and i understand the court's concern or or judge stewart's concern about the  similarity but here we had agent guy goes prove up that connection he talked about in starting on page seven hundred was his testimony that in trafficking cases how drugs germ of north and the proceeds are moved south the court initially was not inclined to allow this testimony it was only after agent diagnosed testified that she allowed it that the court allowed the testimony of mar s sister diana she testified diana that three or four times martinez had directed her to pick up the money and corpus christi and then move it back to not a mormon matter morris it is correct that there is nothing in the record that martinez was charged with this crime and she's been arrested for that correct but that did not come in before the jury i'm just saying if she could get arrested for that if i'm sorry if she had been arrested for that arrest wouldn't communally well again excuse me there are cases where this court looks at the time does not necessarily rest just on a conviction that cases are replete with you know bad acts as well counsel attacking trevino's credibility of trial and we also hope we'll have it compound by asking and arguing ages you only know what trevino told you and that though that scenario is like for example this court's decision in cockrell which is cited in the british and there you only know what trevino told you statement that had to do with this transaction right that's correct and so what he knew will you could know a lot of things about her as an agent that or not response to that question but that's not and does not seem to me that that question gives you the right to dump everything you know into the record remember talking you had a similar situation most of the witnesses were coconspirators and many had immunity or plea agreements and here trevino also how to play agreement which was just goes to trial and the defendant repeatedly used that situation to attack those witnesses credibility and this court found that giving cockles choice to defend in this manner the court didn't abuse its discretion and the same scenario exists here that wasn't tried with markings we were only the only incident that was an issue with the crossing with the drugs not the prior book castrate correct i'm so i still have a hard time seeing when you're asked you only know what trevino tell do you would read and what trevi told him about the bulk cash train time but that was secondary to the issue of martinez not pleading guilty and by doing that she opened up her and talk to her intent with i'm focusing on right did you open the door but the prosecutor initially was arguing that it went to her intent her knowledge and her motives and then was also arguing about opening of the door in the second go round because if you recall in the first go round she says that she and the prosecutor says that she belongs to put on diane to assist and the judge says no these offenses don't seem similar so if my point is how much you have a valid second leg i'm not sure the defense counsel did open the door well even if this court's not inclined it's still her knowledge and her intent justifies the admission of the extent of evidence based on the fact that she put her knowledge motive and all of that in just in your argument saying there are two distinct arguments right but but the prosecutor argued that secondarily and also this court did you know essentially the government needed that or wanted that evidence to corroborate trevino's testimony right because what we had is all the evidence regarding martinez says intent and knowledge and what have you was tied from the circumstantial evidence at the bridges came from trivium you know and a couple things i want to clear up that were just coast time defense counsel's presentation and and one is and i'm not saying he  misspoke or anything but just to so this court understands as they do the dry run with a bunch of downey and set up and they come to the bridge at night mightiness is driving trevino's car that time and the they get they get sent to secondary and the dog alerts to the vehicle but not to the not to the drugs i'm sorry not drugs not to the downey and so that had been removed and there's some testimony which is then disputed  one of them had told the agent that they had been smoking pot in the car and that's why the dog alerted but the second day trevino's driving her sister's taco when they go with the seventy two bottles of downey also said you have to in weighing the probative value of all of this evidence as look at everything look to look essential it a commonsense assessment and here the port was very cautious in exercising its discretion as we already discussed the court wasn't inclined initially to allow it and then after it goes to sided that that would be appropriate but even then the court instructed the jury the ford enough the sister even testified and then again once again with this part pattern instructions instructed the jury again in the jury charge so the court's action to the extent this court thinks that there was a problem it mitigated if not eliminated any alleged prejudice instructions a little bit confusing because if you can't use it to decide if she can cry you're supposed to decide an element of the crime which is knowledge i'm sorry can you set it gets confusing to me because the judge says under no circumstances are you are you evidence to sign guilt whether she did it but they're supposed to consider it as the knowledge aspect which is an element of the crime and it's confusing well she but she follows four  b in terms of you can use it for knowledge and you know motive and that type of thing which is an element of guilt i'm just it's inherently conflicting but there was also no objection and i think the court was trying to be very cautious and to make sure that the jury followed for a four b in conjunction with the applicable law but even if this court is inclined to find that there was error it was harmless but we have is not only the agent testimony and trevino's testimony which of course turned on credibility rive as set forth in the briefs to reno contradicted herself all over the place but she was clear that her what her former best friend was involved in this they contrived just story on their way to the bridge she trevino had a broken open one of those and had morris picking up the drugs apparently there was a discussion in that house about the drugs and martinez was right there so all of that of course is set out in the brief so in addition to those testimonies we also have the text messages from  she wanted to work because she needed cash cash cash and coupled with the just records instruction and any error was harmless in relation to his other and defense counsels other issue what happened there was the prosecutor asked the question of trevino why did you want to protect martina intervene you know is the one that answered because martinez had a lot of record and she didn't want her trevino didn't want martinez doing a lot of times defense counsel immediately objected to before the government could even respond the district court was instructing the jury and gave an even stronger instruction than defense counsel has had requested and this court repeatedly is held in any type of you know these these other than struction secure any error and it's particularly warranted here where martin is hasn't made a serious effort to show otherwise so unless the court has an that question at the end there why were you trying to protect mine tina's i don't know your honor i just read the record i can't i can't supply and i have no idea it was just a follow up question  alerted to the vehicle and that to the packaging the laundry soap and detergent that were pulled out of the vehicle there was testimony to that regard in at the trial that is put it's possible this potential potentially a situation where the canine is trained to seek drugs in the vehicle so he made a smell due to drugs and he's learning to the vehicle well the whole time been introduced at all after that my objection had been over a room at that point it's in it's coming in and the judge is going to give an instruction my objection was on the record that i believe that those extremes often says were dissimilar the court found that they were dissimilar and even in the government's predicate for admission of the evidence there was no indication that that book testimony and case became a similar offense to narcotics violation because there was no indication that there was an underlying drug offense with that but cast munging office which your response to government in meeting the point you're raising th the government's a intent at trial was the same we would be breaking new ground if we found eight it was nowhere because the evidence was just simply you saying we have no cases that have and i mean that it ought to turn on the any evidence i believe that just that the government is asking the court to expand the law as it currently stands to include others that are dissimilar and then that have no connection to the charge  beecham evidence is not quote identical i mean it's sort of the nature of it it's not identical it's similar and so you've got this balance between how dissimilar can it be how program of it cetera et cetera  softer map that has absolutely no relevance but in the scenario border crossing illegality trains for it sarah will have many cases says it has to be identical so then the question is you know in this crucible you know is it sufficiently similar or not so dissimilar given the overall context that it's reversible error that's why i ask you a what's your best case in a dissimilar