talked we met about this other case the first time he met with the d a agents you provided them information didn't you in fact you name names so he brings in a whole or an interview that occurred outside of the presence of the jury information that was not presented to the jury fernando county all right as it was claiming was he had no knowledge before coming to las vegas he had driven the car there but had no knowledge that there was going to be a drug transaction that involved the vehicle and it wasn't until he got up to the room with mr cameron sano that with the agent the undercover agent she will be killed and so his testimony was he was scared and he went through with what mr hampton wanted which was essentially to sit down and say he was the driver that was going to take the drugs back he was a drug that was part of the script exactly that's essentially what his defense was a trial is that mr can sort of told him what to say and say things we need to come off essentially as being drug dealers here some of the things you're going to tell him that you did you know in the past that we worked together in the past e so there was nothing extraneous from that one conversation which mr quinn iran says was done under duress the only other information that came out at trial was the fact that he had been stopped in kansas city in a car that was discovered have money in it besides that there's no taped conversations he's never speaking with any of the other coconspirators he's not present when any any of the other conversations or transactions are done except for the one with the that kind of information in front of a jury if you do we're going to assume it was prejudicial i think the problem with there was an objection there was an objection in that case so that is a difference but i think  reversible are these you know i honestly didn't lay them out in my paperwork here i know that i had some in my brief that were listed and i know that the case goes through a summary of different cases that go back and forth by the prosecutor unfortunately it does happen sometimes but it doesn't always rise to the level of this character just what was the harm in this defense address that was possible and that in all of the other facts that the government had there was no independent circumstantial other evidence other than the testimony of those two people so when you have a credibility contest in front of a jury and you allow the exactly and i think part of the reason they did is because they had this other information the prosecutor was giving him some sort of an endorsement but then on the other side what you're asking is when you put a defendant on the stand and you first stop before he gets on the stand you have an agent saying i thought he was untruthful i don't use tell the truth i just quit talking to him that was damaging to his credibility before the first word came out of his mouth and then once he gets on the stand you have him being placed in a situation where he's being forced to call all the to put the witness in the position where he's even asked regardless of his answer i'm not sure i understand why but here i think you're correct that it is or how harmful it is to well it may have been a good answer but it's never been asked the question i guess it is is what my point is now reserves are remaining time for the battle just talked about the questions that were asked of the defendant which were admittedly improper but the way that he dealt with those did not but by not answering the questions and sort of wiggling testimony was not even necessary in this case that there was substantial independent evidence of guilt you have a defendant who started the week before with a car full of forty six thousand dollars with the cash in western kansas and he says i have no you have more you were and i think answering to me and i didn't want to interrupt you are you finished now go ahead you're ok here's my question it's clearly improper to ask one witness to comment on the credibility list this is something you right i would say yes to that and i would say you know our dressing on asking a witness the bolstering the witnesses credibility by asking agreement what happens if you don't tell the truth i go to jail that's not proper either well it's proper if the defendant brings it up in their opening i said just here just standing alone neither of these things are proper in particularly in the ninth circuit and we've had training valvetrain we've had training particularly on the use of plea agreements explain to people that you can't just front those during the direct examination that you have to wait for it to be brought up was done in that case i'm not standing here and saying that you know that this is invited error the prosecution's held to a higher standard we understand that when i'm just what i would argue here is that in the fact the outcome of the trial that there was some much other evidence matter was that whether it seemed nervous right but there's no disagreement about what he said to the drug agent the only disagreement is whether you believe his story he was surprised to learn it was a drug deal truthfulness agreement really means to him two points he's a minor one is that the agreement was already in evidence or was going to be in evidence over without any objection and that's a lot under the helper case once it's brought just briefly i'd like to address the fact that this is really still just a credibility contest and if you look at that stop in kansas and then the second trip if you recall the testimony at the trial was the only reason you made the second trip was because you didn't get paid for the first one and he only thought he was going to kansas city he didn't think he was driving all the way to las vegas to do another drug deal testimony of the kansas city stop was when they found the money he said he didn't know that it was there the detector the officers at the time believed him they let him go when he went to collect his money for driving that car ca said you gotta drive back to kansas city and get me the money i need you to sign some papers and then i'll pay you so you drove to kansas city to sign papers is what he thought and then when he gets to kansas city campus and says when i'm in vegas you took too long you got to come to vegas so i don't think you can use the getting stopped with the money as independent evidence of his guilt i think it still just comes down to a credibility contest and that's what makes all the air so egregious and i think what you're pointing out that the recitation not only was it five or six pages regarding the truthfulness provision but it occurred after he had completed his testimony for the government so after he had said everything they wanted to say that's when they told the jury like you had to be truthful he says we met didn't we and i told you if you lie the deal is off that makes it actually even more egregious to put it in after he's given his testimony and essentially is a stamp of approval from the government that we've listened to and we've agreed to give him the deal and here's what he's done for us he's told us the truth and we can tell you what the