well here united states versus connors that when you have a th amendment violate them and in this case we had a th amendment violation because there was no probable cause and the court never considered that the court  that is the problem with brown that you must consider all of those circumstances and the court pathetically we used to consider all of those circumstances that's the problem here whether or not there was actually  violation of the th amendment which we contend that there was any morals or this should be considered the no vote but this court can consider whether or not there was a th amendment violation whether or not it was  had nothing to do with that they knew there was an investor but they also knew that syrup happen melissa sr had been investing in funding that organization in the very same way that was reported that is taking money out of the certainly waived the th amendment argument that she was making here at no point did she move to suppress her interview statements based on the lawfulness of harassed wasn't a timely motion made to the extent that it was raised at trial counsel is correct that there was an argument during summations that she should be allowed to argue that it was on the lawful arrest but that was not any in the context of moving to suppress her interview statement and the references to probable cause that do appear in her suppression motion are not directed to suppressing the statements that she made during her interview rather there's a separate motion to suppress evidence that was obtained through a later search warrant of ms conner's telephone and her cell cellular telephone and the the argument there was that the probable cause in that search warrant was based on the statement that connor's had made in her interview and without the statement there wouldn't have been probable cause to search her phone so again not asking the court to suppress the statement that she made during her interview even to the extent that this court were to reach the merits of the question the record does reflect a probable cause to arrest conner's at the time that she was detained and questioned the search warrant to search ms conner's person her vehicle and her residence contained facts showing that she was knowingly conspiring with touchstone and qusay alone  at and those facts included that she was identified as an investor who would provide money to buy her a win that she had participated in the meeting with touchstone with a new heroine supplier and also that she had the circumstances show that her will was not over born during the time that she was interviewed she was given miranda warnings and voluntarily made incriminating statements thereafter turning to the errors that were certain specific instances of bad conduct including ordering a lockpick and a tub of the other one though that's a more troublesome one the main where where they ask the  character witness whether the character witness knows and there follows a recitation of what she was on trial for and another was did you know as a fact and then states in the question what think appropriate to have done and i suppose the question then would be if if if if i if my suggestion is right i suppose the question is then is whether it's harmless but the question is was it error in the st place it's a close call because certainly the questions are in relation to the facts that are being proved a trial but the government was careful to raise its questions in terms of what connor's had stated during her interview what she had stated she had done so although they were fact going to show her participation in the drug conspiracy they were doing her guilt of the concern as to the conspiracy and the questions alone didn't show that she was conspiring to deal drugs or that the witness had to accept that fact but rather were asking about the events that connor's had made there was one question in there that was not phrased in that way and the witnesses were asked whether they knew that conner had had loaned her car for the purpose of picking up drugs and there it could have been phrased more  to her heart didn't necessarily require showing guilt that she was conspiring to try to to distribute drugs but to the extent that the court finds that the district court was wrong and that those questions did cross over a line that the cross examination was harmless for four reasons st the witnesses all emphatically denied the question  the questions that the government asked redirect they stated that any of those participation and in those specific instances or that the statements that she made during her interview would have been totally out of her character  secondly the jury was instructed that only the answers witness give our evidence not the questions asked by the attorneys rd there was otherwise strong evidence against connors here four different witnesses testified as to her participation in the drug conspiracy that testimony was corroborated by other evidence and of course the government showed the jury the the admissions that the defendant made during her video recorded interview and then finally the government didn't make any reference to the testimony of these character witness in summation or otherwise try to make use of any of the responses that the witnesses gave so even if about whether what weight of the jury could give to her confession and the district court gave a legally proper instruction the instruction that connor's requested not an a a lot and she can show that there was an error there with respect to the challenge the statement made in the government rebuttal the government was trying to counter any sort of that the jury had to disregard the confession if they found it was coerced to the extent that the jury could have interpreted what the government was thing as that they could wrong or should be interpreted differently were arguments that were made at trial to the jury and don't support any sort of finding that the witnesses testified falsely unless i can answer any based on the th amendment phrases in voluntariness and that's what you're writing but asking to suppress of based on lack of problem causes rust genders and completely different now because all one needs to do to show the was based on the cross examination which was disastrous for her he refused to testify after that as far as this being harmless it's impossible to believe that that would be harming the jury was heading off to the jury box and the prosecutor had just without really corroborating evidence and without any cake he provided the court with his was just a question demonstrate that he  and then they went off to deliberate before disaster question in every case he was wrong on every single question none of them should have been asked and we won those witnesses st thought that we had no knowledge of