good morning my name's and strum and i represent mr ernest well more i just wanted to alert the court that i did file a twenty eight chain letter on june fourth and i've given that to the clerk and i also want to reserve at least a minute for rebuttal keep and john the sole issue at trial was whether mr bellmore possessed a gun on the day that he was arrested the only direct evidence that he did is that the gun came from rob and john and more specifically it came in her grand jury testimony at trial mr john testified that she never saw mr wilmore with a gun and she never saw him wearing a red jacket in which the gun was found as expected the government specifically told that she would take the fifth amendment but he was but the government did say she's going to just about her grand jury testimony and a week when he when the government learned this week before the trial she made sure that she had appointed counsel now the only reason to really to have appointed counsel in that situation is to advise her on taking the fifth but the district court and then well you know we'll just see what happens he made no inquiry into what  right only after the district court intervened and the government's position is that what you suppose the district court appointed counsel your honor the government and the district court actually did not appoint counsel the government wants is john we had met with her in a pretrial conference on the thursday before the tuesday trial actually and that we became aware at that time that ms john potentially was going to to recant about what time of day this took place or some other issue like that which she she told you in the pretrial an interview that for whatever reason if she took the stand at trial she was going to do reeking of what she had said before the grand jury right that's that's correct your honor that testimony before the grand jury was sworn in yesterday so if she's going to get on the stand at the trial and say no gun that's directly contradictory of what you said before the grand like i told the district court because she was going to recant her sworn testimony would you agree whether it's a rule that binds this case or not that it would have been better practice to deal with this issue before she took the  what is wrong with the district court prior to trial saying if you have any answers to the patient you're going to take the fifth i want to know about it before you take the stand out of the presence of the jury and i don't allow partial invocations in my c testimony which defendant complains of here today it's the government's position that that was a collateral aspect of her entire testimony well you had the d window you know come out and say the right of confrontation is really what the history saying didn't you testify differently in front of the grand here yesterday and then when you get to the question well which one is true that's to have cut off yes or the district we're going to think of you know it's not uncommon for witnesses to have said under oath or otherwise it's different things at different times is there anything more fundamental to cross examination than being able to ask a witness whether one of two s were able to cross examine her extensively the defense counsel grand jury testimony not specifically about what she had said to the grand jury but indirectly about you the government has repeatedly characterized this as the collateral issue and i don't think that our inability to cross examine this john of her grand jury testimony was collateral because again that was the only direct evidence that someone actually saw him with a gun we don't contest that there is circumstantial evidence but you know that sort of goes back to the standard of review which just means that when commenting on one i think it's probably instructional yeah because it's such a fundamental denial of the right to cr examine the jury heard both versions thank you both versions but they don't want to hear any explanation of sort of the twenty four thousand dollar question is that what made you tell that to the grand jury that's why our theory  drugs you thought you would benefit if you testified against your husband from the grand jury didn't you we don't have to do that and we wouldn't have got to do it possibly because she would have been brought but i mean that line of testimony is very important to that's in the reliability of that grand jury testimony and that is the key issue in this case and also just you know that's our right to cross examine and to test the reliability of that testimony  to the question which is true your grand jury testimony your testimony here today correct correct perfectly appropriate invocation of the program then for this particular witness but any indication in the record where you were you tempted to examine tell us why you testified the way you did with the grand jury that was to necessarily involve the fact that question w you know move proceed to the next case on the calendar which is united states against dunbar and counselor present if they would come for