get to avoid any criminal referral on these d m v violations were you stopped from asking that i believe i was because if there's that in the record that you were you tried to is to ask do you believe that the prosecutor is going to you know protect you from prosecution if you were god and you didn't ask your putting it in terms of step one step two but you never asked or just didn't see the difference between pitching for harassing which i certainly was able to get him back with what he didn't see the difference but because you never asked the next question and he says and that certainly allows you to develop that area least maybe i'm reading this wrong but i assume that when he said the relevant parts he lied under oath and that allows you to develop that area that he's saying to you in the context of what he said earlier you can't make this witness a lawyer you've gotten that he lied under oath that allows you to develop the area you could call a lawyer as a witness you could take other actions but you didn't you didn't do those actions and actually was brought out that's currently on one seventy nine he said the relevant part is whether or not the person previously lived and whether or not he lied under art and that certainly allows you to develop that area and his statement in the co there is maybe a complete but you never asked the right question it seems to me i could be wrong but it seems to me us questions that call for legal conclusions and the judge shot that down but you question well actually i asked if he was aware whether or not he had committed certain felony offenses and he never answered whether or not the witness knew are not perhaps the when you started by saying i don't know anything about that i don't know about state law he didn't the judge just had to call for a legal conclusion about whether or not someone committed a felony i think whether or not he's violated the particular is the witness says i violated  excluding sustaining an objection to the question that you asked not really a ruling denying you asking another question i actually believe that it is because i asked him that whether or not i could make my record and he said that i correct and i told him that i wanted to bring out the felony because it would go to bias and this is when we had the cowardly about him you know that i want to testify and then he said you can't in you developed whether he lied under oath and that certainly allows you to develop that area seems like the judge is giving you a green light to develop a theory with a proper witness just saying you can't make this represented many of them understand what a felony is and he does not believe the existence of the power was relevant in any way and that is also on establishing the record by the fact that when the government and because he doesn't want a criminal referral made by the government right for felony offenses absolutely yes but why why isn't that cumulative to the idea that you've already developed one that he had violated the law relating to the d m v requirements and second that he was in the country illegally that if there's a referral to the immigration authorities he would be kicked out of the country that he doesn't pays income taxes that he doesn't play social security taxes all these things worse than worse so if as i understand it from your questioning and you you also established that he did not expect the government to prosecute on anything or anything for immigration  just right there why doesn't that go to bias and there then kick the issue on this other question into question ok you've got evidence of bias that you brought out for potential bias and now it's a question of where is the judge offenses if you can even call them that because no one did committed a crime mr probably did here he told the jury that actually just made an error and he told lies but he wouldn't do it again and that's a record pace to ninety three he told the jury that if they should use their common sense and experience as to why so many my arms d m v plans for tax purposes and the jurors don't have common sense or experience about whether or not they could be referred for a felony the judge stopped me and said look you can't inquire in this area you can't inquire as to whether or not you committed a felony the germane part idolised the relevant part of the law is and he ruled in is that in any event the record i well you've got over three times i've got it right here in front of me i'm familiar with it i think i know every word in it though that by heart of my question is just in further to judge base point did you make a specific proof what bothers me i mean i you've got some merit to your argument but what bothers me is the idea can we reverse the district court over a question that was never asked at basically you want us to reverse the district court for for not permitting testimony on a question that wasn't asked and the coworker you're referring to is somewhat ambiguous as to what the judge was doing and you're telling me you've tried cases before this judge you know this you know that it was clear to you but i tried cases as a lawyer and it's not clear to me from reading the transcript  totally shut you down if you had like if you had called a lawyer witness or if you wanted to ask both of the other questions about bias that you were precluded i respectfully disagree with testify so the judge is like things am i right the judge is concerned that the witness can't testify of self of other legal i mean that requires a lawyer i'm not sure but that may have been one of the the defense counsel in this case has had more than sufficient opportunity to inquire as to both harasser the answer in fact if through the records between pages one thirty nine and one seventy three she was like yes he is not seeking to prosecute you that's what he told me so first of all i'm thirty two starting at line number one and then she sa she told you that the ins has been not made aware of the case so first of all she didn't like the fact that he expected not only not to be turned over to ask but not to be prosecuted when it came to the state that's  state criminal penalties the next the next obvious question is and you don't expect to be prosecuted for that that just was never asked and that question was never disclosed out or ruled upon at all but certainly they were says i'll allow you to go i think this is the important ruling you can go into the factual aspects of these violations he doesn't say anything and ask whether he's going to be prosecuted but what the judge doesn't want to have happen here is for a lay witness to isn't really material to what was going on but i don't really see addressing there whether these questions call for legal conclusions and i don't know that specifically that was stated in the brief but it seems to me and the fact that he was subjected to state criminal penalties as well as federal penalties i think all of that taken in the context is more than sufficient to establish that this particular witness is biased or modest he and as i said i'm not sure as to bias whether it's a felony or a misdemeanor the question that's asked and answered showing that there's a ten potential for buys is scary criminal state criminal penalties error review and i think the import of that is to say brooke that when this is all said and done this if there was any air it certainly is harmless but i think quite clearly that there just wasn't nor more than enough information came biassed more than enough came out about motive to lie more than enough came out about his veracity and i think that overall looking at all the circumstances  felony so it's not marginal well the government respectfully disagrees what's what's central to by asking is whether the person could be prosecuted and more importantly what his expectation is in regards to those penalties and whether it's classified as a misdemeanor or felony frankly i don't think the jury's going to care what the jury wants to know is are you subject to criminal penalties and are you going to be prosecuted for them that would be the important is is crucial at all as far as the jury's notion of whether this witness might be biased you don't think that the there's a notion that a misdemeanor means at most one year in the opposed to a criminal matter where someone is asked to identify the perpetrator of a crime and the government in their brief also at page seventeen i think the court's ruling was it ers one twenty matters here is because when courts weighing the five factors under manson versus braithwaite the degree of attention and the time lag the when you stop or trinity to view the individual on the level of certain didn't weigh those things against the seller he simply found that on their own well two of them may have favored the defendant and the other three they were the government i actually take issue with his findings on air but in any event i think he didn't perform the test properly he didn't weigh it against the fact that it was a show and it's very legal authority in the ninth circuit in this type of context standards for a show  said adopting this the body as testimony i still don't think it was a suggestive idea because it was this commercial transaction and that's that absence of record page one twenty seven one twenty eight when he first rule he only had the agent's testimony he let me read this it the other issue fifteen seconds i think i think it's more important to ask a witness rather than a lawyer about bias and about whether they know the consequences of suffering a felony conviction and whether they can be referred for prosecution because the whole idea of  jose and fifteen minutes for the real vegas to call the case does euro two five zero two five three and zero two five zero