issue when the trial judge terminated the lawyers opening statement right in the middle and the effect of this obviously was to prejudice the defendant and to make the defendant's lawyer look like she didn't know what you are doing and do you balance in terms of it seems to me that there were some warnings there were some attempts to control counsel and counsel kept violating the court's orders here what do you know what do you do about that and given the fact that opening statements aren't evidence in the case there's just an opportunity to address the court well it's true there was a couple of warnings i don't think the lawyer violated i mean if the the judge thought there was a violation i don't think motorcycle group which was a very violent group that he had no choice that he had to play a role when he was play acting and at that point the court jumps in and say you're arguing the merits of the gives the lawyer violent groups in the country that the undercover agent who was involved knew this that the group was a national organization and had chapters all over the country as each defendant want to do with the court i did not allowed the producer which would have shed light on this particular issue well i don't think that you know what evidence was excluded  issue because maybe you can argue one thing or another they didn't just didn't do everything right it was a little intolerant it was short tempered no we're all of those we all have these problems the question really is on any given day the question really is looking at the case looking at the case what evidence did your client want to produce which the judge said no i'm not allowed no i don't know that there was evidence that what the judge precluded was the right to make an opening statement and to be able to stand and i think i responded that i don't believe there was any particular evidence other than the court showing a bias to the defendant and his lawyer later on after the third time the lawyers finally cut off the judge in the sidebar or out of the present the jury any of that is accused of perpetrating a fraud on the court jesters you made a fraudulent statement you're manipulating the court you don't know the function of an opening statement you don't intend to prove the facts take a cue from the judge and figure this lawyer doesn't know what she's doing and therefore it's reflective on the defendant and i think that's the problem but i don't think there was any specific evidence that was excluded as as you were from the court and so on that basis i think we appreciated the support would closely look and see if there wasn't a violation of just the fundamental fairness to the defendant all of that testimony there was two ex girlfriends and a daughter and first of all it would've it would've in essence bolster it and but not just vulture it would have verified with the defended had stated and without that it's really out in excluded that testimony that there was this that that it wasn't shown that there was any motives to either fabricator lie and that would have rebut a debt and that becomes very crucial on that on the whole defense i see his defense was that i that's basically the other stables where he told us exactly what those things were and there were three witnesses in court they took the witness stand one of two of them were cut off the third one didn't get into it but it was one of his children and that was who he said that he had told that to before so that was a that would have been a witness that could have verified his story and it really came down to that i think that one basically is the defendant testifying to a certain story then he gets impeached and that's it he's not allowed in that he makes a statement through this through news it was in the early part of it had been a couple of years prior wait wait let me double check the tape it was a big difference whether it's new and whether it's i believe it was prior to no it was prior to the actual incident and form the basis for this case has it went on for a long time right i mean queen and then there's another agent that he deals with where he supposedly compasses or where there was a statement given to another agent that's correct and howard what  before the ninety eight yes that he wanted to get out of the group and that's why there was no motive to lie which gets around the one clause that apparently the court was hung up on on the prior consistent statement that there was no motive to fabricate  nine and the statements that he was trying to offer through the defense witness that were made while he was in prison and approaching when he got out of prison the last time before this incident which was april of express or implied charge against the defendant that these statements had been fabricated there certainly was an effort by the government to prove that the defendant had not if he had told people before that he was afraid that he wanted to get out but he was acquitted and so what was your attack on his credibility what were you attacking if you weren't saying well you're not afraid you still belong to the mongols permitted to say look four years before this gun thing happened i told people i was trapped i couldn't get out of this outfit and that's part of my mindset and why he was sceptical to an immediate threat however the the other elements whether or not the jury would have found the other elements had been proved or not is questionable and the jury heard eviden ramifications of that he also established that there was a green light out on defendant and agents to county confirm this in his testimony that there was a green light issued against defendant because he for whatever reason i had gotten into an ample opportunity to ask even clean about every aspect that he was not allowed to ask him about a cross examination because it was beyond a sort of show that he didn't recently fabricate the fear that doesn't i mean if he said to people before the memorial day incident you know i mean a lot of people you know there's always the argument that people suddenly you know see the light after they've been or  will prove and then go into the theory says that what the judge wanted to do you know because he just sort of told the story well just to get back to the court's question to put the opening scene in context the government present an opening statement that took approximately three transcripts pages in this case all told the defense was also permitted to make an opening statement that was approximately three transfers over there that's very unfair i mean  by stating what the defense what she was able to get out what the defense was repeated throughout her opening statement even with the interruptions of the judge she started out by saying no way out even though mr creamer wanted to get out at that moment he had no choice but to take that gun and walk well there's an issue if he had the evidence i will show the evidence will show that he had no way out the evidence will show that even though mr kramer wanted to get out at the moment mr kramer had no choice but to take that gun and walk that would have been ok well i mean it seems like it's sort of us fine line here it is yes it is a little argumentative and it's a little more interacting and all those of us that have to sit through lon interesting but but i just i don't see that it's that different than what i've seen people do for twenty years what i did what i've seen other people to now is whether it made any difference or not that may be a different situation but you know it's not like he was talking about her she was fifteen it's not like she was talking about evidence that the court had said i'm not going to let in and things like that well just that and i understand what your honor saying just to address your question about what was it that so offended the district judge it was began when she began arguing about the there yes your honor and tell us why first of all the court gave a curative instruction at the at the end he told turn and told the jury that his admonitions to counsel had nothing to do with this case it had to do with she would have been prevented from saying in her opening statement throughout the trial she established it by calling her own witnesses she established on cross examination and she was going to a full opportunity to argue in closing everything that she wanted the jury to hear without interruption by the court as she went on for six or seven pages and her closing argument without any interruption so it's in this case just because the jury may or may not have been denied a preview of the evidence does not mean if they were not allowed to fully hear and digest the evidence throughout the rest of the trial and then hear at the the closing argument which was something that the district court felt that the defense counsel was attempting to do through opening statement and that is why in this kings there were any error on the part of the district court court was harmless and also viewed in light of the entire record and the strength of the evidence of the defendant's guilt in this case denying the defense counsel the the opportunity to make a full opening statement as harmless er and i would like to address just a couple of the other alleged abuse of discretion by the district court and the district court is alleged of abuse it's just the discretion by cutting off the cross examination especially to queen because of health  the areas the defense counsel were delving into were not areas that had been covered on direct examination and the court repeatedly emphasized that if you want to cover these three areas which were the criteria for joining the group the distrustful nature of the organization in the extent to which agents that are all agents had infiltrated the mongols he gave the defense counsel ample opportunity and in fact encouraged her to call a special agent clean as her own witness and in fact the defendant is harmless or not i think if you take the cumulation of these things between the opening statement the failure to allow in three defense witnesses one thing to cross examine a government witness to try to pull the information out it's another thing to put on your own case in your