conversation that was recorded was the voice of your client and while the lame witness could be impeached by the fact that the late witness had never spoken directly but wasn't the jury told that they'd have to decide that if you yes trial so what you're really arguing is that the lady witness should not have been permitted to offer an opinion on an ultimate track in issue that the jury had to decide that's correct the problem is that the r that that is the voice of your client is not the whole rationale for why the district court needs to satisfy itself that the expert has a sufficient familiarity with the voice of the defendant in with this is a this is a situation i would not listen to the tape like because we just got it but i understand that the quality of all that seraphic is anything that was it ever argued is any part of your argument that the jury would not really be able to make that comparison absent having somebody come in and took it for them by saying well i've listened to it so even if you can't make out  is to get into the details of the prior misconduct and doesn't that go directly to the discretion of the trial court to decide whether or not the proto dahlia was outweighed by getting off and told the jury an instruction and it's your job to decide whether or not that is the voice of the defendant or not the this particular witness was a spanish speaker that's how she was identified to the jury and sort of tapes in spanish pointed out that the defendant's voice jose mine test in the known cave exemplar was a motown not a very high cage and he mumbles and used he was able to pick up the same voice inflections on the recorded conversation so when the subject of the i know they have it but i just you know if it's if it's sort of a mishmash and all you're getting is noise with two people speaking and you absent having the witness testify that would throw their hands up and says i can't tell who this is i know it's supposed to be the advantage of our new york with you know accessories that maybe the jury didn't care for the jury might have been in doubt based on hearing the to take yes we know this is jose but we can't pick up enough on that conversation given the quality of the conversations recording to say that it's the same voice that appears on the shorter tapes of the congressman from the c i so then what the argument made by the defense counsel any point that in fact these tapes were such poor quality that they couldn't be played or even in the interviews to fact there was a motion in limine hearing where the government withdrew certain tapes because there there poor quality  case of course just heard i think case involving limited cross examination and i would say that if you're the court did limit the amount of cross examination concerning the conventions of the defendant on however it didn't rise to the level of  ask the court so they can ask for other he's lied to government officials right that's for as they were allowed to do what they're saying is but that's not the same thing as saying this is the context in which you lied to them you did a repeatedly and you're  basically a liar when it comes to these kinds of contacts as opposed to sort of a generic statement well i've lied and you know the jury says well who hasn't lied to government officials so one when i think that they were able to  they will give two minutes to the other side and divide up  enforcement agencies about his name when you question but his name you know is basically whether you lie to government agencies about his name and of course everyone might have lied to government agencies that's totally different it's only out of context and also it didn't bring out the