this obviously was introduced over objection but in this case the really issue is the fourth the fourth factor of the now is this and they're told is that whether the prior consistent statement must be made prior to the time that the went down and i find that everybody focused on the save your hide hahnemann and that was what the defense was charging created the motive to fabricate so anything that occurred before that can come in even his family has them some other pressures that was the focus so my question is why at this point is that finding and the on the legal question whether i mean a greater motive to fabricate a rose at that point in time now the defense i mean there was there was to counsel what one counsel concentrated on that particular really colorful statement  given by the agent to mr peterson now i was a trial attorney that was second in cross examination i asked mr peterson regarding how the interview started and it was clear from peterson testimony that interview started that first of all that the the police the chief of police came up with the agent they both were invited to mr peterson's residence and the agents started asking people mr peterson that well we're here to ask you these questions and you can really help yourself by testifying against others now if that's not a motive to fabricate that he could help himself that he's facing serious problems i  hide comment and that was the first time is there any now are we supposed to second guess that impression the answer is yes your honor i would because the impression is examination and i don't doubt that was the focus of mr mallock eyes defense because i mean the nature of what he was trying to see from his cross examination but that is not to say that mr peterson didn't have a motive to fabricate earlier and and and it's not really contested from the record that that the agent was telling mr mallock mr peterson that he was in serious problem there was a chief of police right there with them during this interview and off tape that he's saying that the only way you can help yourself to testify against others now when dennis when when your little confronted with the issue of that you can you help yourself by testifying against others now that point you're thinking that well i can the the the the issues the prior consistent statement comes in to rebut it plain that the the witnesses to trial testimony is a fabrication well you would have to believe that mr then when he gave us this statement that word meant it had no motive to fabricate he hadn't you know he was just telling the truth a lot and this was telling to a friend of his i'm just saying what happened and the police weren't there and he could do anything i mean he could all this was kind of heartfelt and he was just doing it for telling the truth well but that's not the case because he's got an agent right there you've got the chief of police right there telling telling him hey you can help yourself by testifying against  others now the critical part is out means that the government gets to argue that well you can believe mr peterson because of the fact that you know before the twenty years that statement was consistent with the trial testimony therefore it must be true but the court under our case was on open door on cross you properly cross examined peterson about motivations for telling the truth and i asked him specifically about the savior was improperly allowed did not come in on direct the government did not offer in their direct right in the cross examination one of the defense attorneys cross examined peterson about his motivation to tell the truth don't think the defense counsel says jested that anything was said before wasn't talking through timing but an emphasis in cross examination was about whether the save your high comment provided a reason for doesn't strengthen the district court's findings in this river your honor and quite frankly the timing is not quite like that because there was two defense counsel and mr peterson's mr mallock eyes suggesting that there was a motive to fabricate have that point time starting before the tape even was was cued up and started recording of the statement mr peterson correct that the government didn't even attempt to consistent statement with the top trial testimony now but the problem is is that the motive of fabricate occurred before the statement the government wanted to introduce was recorded now we're only talking about a recording  n i'm argument it's prejudicial hearsay because it's supported that there was statements by mr peterson of involvement of the defendant and certain activities and and that was by by virtue of the fact that it comes in  it's a harmless error because there was other evidence but this is the evidence of the jury focused on this is the first thing they asked for in this they wanted that tape they wanted to listen to the tape because the credibility of mr peterson was critical to determine whether these acts broadening and there was no theft from the cross from the tribe so it was critical evidence that they have made a difference in this particular case for the government to the to the prejudice of the defense if i could say just a couple minutes earl one fifty five one fifty six and one fifty seven one fifty eight and that is the six ten reporters transcript one thirty one thirty two and one thirty two one thirty three i mean the question is it's pretty clear in the question read when he was off tape he would be mr redmann advise us that they were investigating for certain misconduct correct that's correct and advise you the seriousness of the misconduct you had been involved in correct that is correct and he told essentially you could help yourself out right that's correct yes and you could help yourself out to give information on others right that's basically correct now there was you know there was a little bit backtrack regarding the when it   tape recorded statement that was introduced by the government now judge hawkins it's true i didn't ask for limiting struction however the evidence is hearsay if it comes in a prior consistent statement it comes in against both defendants argument the argument that we made as defense counsel was that the motive the fabricator occurred prior to tape recording so therefore is not admissible at all and i'm not sure where the sponsors are going on i was just curious whether if the argument the issue is the government doesn't really rebut the motive the the actual motive to fabricate what was the trigger was the government rebut the testimony saying this this prior to the motive testify prior to the motive to fabricate a rose this testimony is consistent with his trial testimony and that's the purpose of a prior consistent statement to to sensually bolster the witness saying that he said this before you know he thought it was in his best interest and therefore you can believe him because he had didn't have a motive fabricate well that's just not the case in this case from the get go from that interview all the stuff that mr peterson said had a prior h he had a motive to fabricate knowing that he could help himself bob like testify against others and if i can't think of any anything that is a greater motivation fabricate is that if you're told that well you can help yourself but you got to testify against others you thought on behalf of your client they were earlier and more important motives or triggers to fabricate absolute is that correct that's what i did and that's why the district