nurtured at smith college her stated philosophy is that if a man can do it how hard can it be she has in my eyes beautiful strong willed  capable of all kinds of mysteries to me it's like being a holder coaster she comes from a wealthy family and the reason that's important to t the distortion this to might benefit but not the government's for instance the jury learned from of listening to the statement that my client a client spoke to his government basic story was that she didn't remember giving any material information to the defendant she just had no memory of any specific incident where she did it so the fact that they talk the talk about work on a regular basis was obviously important to the government but they took from his statement as is his claim that the the nature of our conversations were about staffing and workplace environment never of mouth materiality that's my little add but  in that the government is contesting and i'm having trouble figuring out what the right way to think about it so the st example is we talked about work and then to make it simple but only about staffing co an admission that they talked about work that's relevant fact because if there was no evidence that they ever talked about work governance case would be much harder so it's the best authority you ha that to be included will come it d is qualified by the nd statement in a significant manner i would suggest because for instance on this record the government argued to the jury i don't require you to put in the nd part that makes clear the context in which he was saying he was near the truck which is i was near the truck without knowing the gun was there that sounds to me similar to i talked about work with her but the material matter that you were off and he says yes and then they ask them what does material mean to him and he gives a definition that is very different then to the concert  opine about how her trust was broken because this theory is misappropriation information from someone that's in a trusting relationship with you and the government says that relationship but i certainly don't think that was something for the jury to hear nor do i think this case was overwhelmingly i have had pretty well for cases where it is trial psychosis that you think you're going to have any chance of  and the government said it was about to what it is that due to our review of this issue and the actual statement i understand why you think the act with the actual statement had this additional content to it about the fact that they were the f d a was working with the company to try to get the drug back on the market there were lots of patients who were demanding that the drugs come back all kinds of things of that nature were beaten with my grief and the government's position at trial was if he hadn't read that article if i could prove he read that article the fact that it was on the public record was irrelevant and i say that that's just  of articles on the grounds that he had shown that the defendant had shown them to his wife in advance of a meeting with the lawyer oh i didn't hear you that it was relevant to his state of mind  why he engaged in the traits that he did and what the district court did is that allowed the admission of the articles that the defendant's family right that the defendant had shown him and did not allow those that she did not recall the article at issue here is ron said she did not recall the defendant having shown to him the government knowledge that these articles were in the public realm and in the public domain when this issue came up it was never argued below that the theory or the ground on which it was that these were being sought to be admitted was that it would rule but the element that this was material nonpublic information it was respectfully it was on the ground that it was relevant to the defendant's state of mind as to why he made the traits that he did on the mar a didn't make any curative instruction to suggest it can't consider anything that she said about whether her where there was abuse enough but right now i think the other is the prejudicial content that he's objecting to comes  traded in harriet stock in the time period of october th and before october th right yes you can take my word for it and then the follow up if you have any feelings about whether or not this was relevant to any kind of trust you had seeking to elicit i think that really does go to you know that what this most prejudicial i'm not seeing you identifying anything about it that's provocative that aspect that you see when it's really very prejudicial be said has some provocative content but the statement that he didn't value me what is probative about that with respect yes part of it rather than give me a chance to explain why it was just right you know that we have to decide on the record roll shouldn't of that part been stricken and i guess i'm still not hearing from you what probative about the part that says you know there's a pattern of him not valuing me which is not probative of the question of whether this particular action bears on the nature of the trusting relationship that is a claim about how she was treated in the marriage a particular answer should be added to the redacted transcript under the doctrine of completeness this was an across the border claim that in the defendant's words and the main thrust of the deposition was his own explanation as for right he traded marriott stock and therefore the entirety of the deposition should come in there's no support in the case law for that argument and for good reason it would be the proverbial no relationship necessarily between being your car and what's in the car there is a relationship between saying i talked about the topic and the content of what we talked about ok so that makes that this is an across the board time but i think the cases that i've looked at i think the nd circuit decision in the williams case which we cited is possibly the most relevant because that where the court basically said that it's not x and that just seems the different thing where the risk of distortion does seem higher to me when you say years we talked about this topic specifically x and then to just say well you talk about the topic as if you don't have to argument but part of the difficulty here is that we haven't we don't really have you know specific examples identified as ignore or worse specific idea examples identified to the district court but this has to come in under the rule i would just be speculating your honor could could you just address them so the less of the distinctions which was how to deal with the why question and whether the rule of completion is the rule completeness  again it's hard to respond to you know any specific argument as to the transcript in this case because that's not how it was presented to either below which was spot on  questions just on the last thing that my brother said about i didn't really object these documents were on the public record i said that the only reason that they should come in was because my these this these documents were on the public record and it was the government that took the position that i didn't have any proof that the defendant ever and therefore they shouldn't come in not not that i was not taking the position they're on the public record the jury has a right to know that this information was generally available to the public did you make the argument the relevant point isn't whether you made the argument they were on the public record for what purpose were you making that show that he had relied on them and showing them to his wife not right or wrong so my position of it i believe that's a fair reading of the record that my position of fall private and so it was my theory by the end that if you traded on insider information in the room but in fact all that information was on the public record he had to commit a crime thank you both take a five minute