kid agent was that next to the prosecutor throughout the trial trial we clearly tells mr you don't at least ten times i believe more than ten times that the other agents involved did not know that the person in the by other people and other other agents of the government argued that these statements were not admitted for their truth but to show mr humes demeanor now that may have been the reason stated by the district court but that's not what occur it so the court did give an admonition to the jury however it's clear that from the beginning the government intended to argue that it in for their truth and that what they did even after that when the instruction was given for example pretrial the government stated when the defendant lied and agents know that he has lied they're combining him with why they know he has lied and that is clearly something we should be able to bring up to the jury that is that we are one to one that was before the jury was that was not before the jury but i think argument of court it was an argument to the court but after winning instruction was given the prosecutor the government in this case called the agent was recalled to the stand the second day of trial the trial the videotape was basically played at the end of the first day the limiting instruction was given and then the jury went home for the evening the first thing the court government did in the morning was asked if it was everything on that videotape is it the truth did you lie in any way to a defendant to mr c don and even says no so at that point the government was clearly arguing the truth of the statement on the videotape the government then proceeded to argue that the truth of the statement on the videotape during closing argument in the excerpt of record at pa play down so i don't think there's any question here that the government actually argued the statements for the truth of the matter and after the limited instruction was getting there by undermining that ethic is the  violate the confrontation clause and i think that this is one of those situations we have an agent repeatedly stating that he knows what those officers that that those officers would go to court and tell the truth and that this is what those officers would testify were unable to recognize mr if you don't that she didn't know who he was and on direct she basically said yeah he looks familiar which would make sense because they were transported together to the metropolitan correctional don't would ever believe the testimony we never believe his statements and his explanations and the jury heard all that is lying or he actually is kind of impossible i mean i can't i don't see that as well i hearing in a portion of the videotape that's actually before the court because the whole videotape has and then stand up it's a portion where there isn't characterize his story and it's unbelievable so it's not his his entire story that that's before the court at th week there was a witness at trial who was someone from the transportation company for his doctor who confirmed that he kicks in the past several times a week at the border had picked him up twice that that week he said he e again referring to the fact that this is a government agent who doesn't leave the defendant and it was in egypt that sat next to the prosecutor at the prosecution table throughout the entire trial this error was exacerbated for b that motion was denied and of course they've all had it redacted and they said well we're going to redact it not suppress the whole thing i'd like the opportunity to bring another motion or portions of it on and review the videotape the redacted version i received that emanation the defense counsel that was pointed out to the jury was and it was defense counsel merely asked the witness if she had spoken with the prosecutor out in the hall during breaks and the government said will did compartment he was never ever offered for the government to show or to present or in the evidence that otherwise cannot have come then certainly interrogations are quite frankly was that what was the in questions were the truth in fact they were instructions specifically over and over again during the time before and even after the videotape was played that that was not being offered for that but those were just interview techniques and when at closing argument when we indicated or i said inspector kata hey was beating that subject to death it was about revisiting that subject if this court has seen or will see the video tape he goes over that issue over and over again now it's quite frankly it's important for the jury to make up their decision right that's what the entire argument is about it's an incredibly court for the jury to hear those harsh statement the defendant statement and his reaction to those statements and what he said in reaction to those very uncomfortable circumstances that the agents were confronting him when you're saying you're anxious to do crossing indicated saying that he was going to cross unseen united states when he over here is another person in line talking to yet another person saying hey i've got a car i need to cross it will you cross it for me what does he do he's not part of the conversation he spain he pipes up i'll do it i'll do it and in return for that he expects to get paid ten dollars he also is saying under the interrogation in the videotape that he has been involved in the border area for several years he you for any money right but he has responses you know he only offered me ten dollars there couldn't be anything in there so i took the offer of just ten dollars as being indicative of nothing being in there no nothing pretty reasonable well it's not reasonable because he says he's talking to a person he has never seen before he's given a car that he has never been associated with before and he goes to the does he say about all of this the fences that well he has arranged for transportation to go to his doctors at port in fact there was evidence from the doctor's office that he has a rate for transportation  examination that she was introduced to two individuals when she is essentially bought over to the car she assumed based on the interaction that she in the case was fifteen minutes long that's two individuals would be driving her himself about his story that is implausible for a lot of reasons that we just went through the fact that he lied at primary inspection supposedly knowing that he just picked up the car minutes before and then indicating that it was indicated that she had interactions with two individuals that she was identical that she was introduced to as the drivers now that's why she was clearly under the assumption even in the direct examination she thought she was going to be driven by two people that the standard of the best counsel said she was sort of not too sure about that well i think well i don't i think the record is clear as to how she testified and what she said she a critical for matter and i keep using that word critical because you know we should focus on what the evidence is not necessary we what the agency the evidence is because that's inappropriate and that was never what we intended to do when we offered up that videotape and let's talk about the videotape as well i admit it was a horrendous mistake that i put in a videotape that didn't have that redacted portion of  that you know the fact that she indicated offhand that we made the reste remark and offhandedly is used by judge when he does that he is married to someone who is in documents it really is not an issue and it has no relevance to this particular case we never touched it as well because why it doesn't make any sense she could have been undocumented at the time they were married years ago we're not sure and more importantly according to mr grant's theory of he was coming in from mexico to seek your medical assistance that day all indications from his own statement in the videotape that he was living outside of the united states and coming in for those regular treatments so even if his wife is an undocumented alien to the united states all indications are that she's living possibly with its life outside of the united states anyway so that much is irrelevant never touched by the government at all so the reason why i go through that number of version every time we have motion more things get redacted out so we were left with especially the original version a second version and that's following at the very last minute grant an exercise that portion maybe as much as two minutes but no more we put on the primary inspector we put on the side of the glass because we put on the secondary inspector who had responsibility over it to defend it at secondary as well to officer told that we put out officer of folks who  these agents will say this and this move cry i have talked to them and that's what they're going to say this here bird in fine who they were i don't think specifically in his direct sanitation indicating who was there he was only person through he had interactions with at secondary because by that time there was indications that a body had been found but even at that time no one knew who the the gender of that person inside it was only at the time that said who he talked to and that they had told him these things and what i'm trying to get that is whether he ever at dinner five who those persons worth that he said he i at the brakes it just be calm and tell the truth you'll be fine and why is that wrong it's only wrong if the impression that is left with the jury is that the government somehow juries turn their decisions on the spot on the sometimes very strange things at least as it relates to us so we have to put everything that we know up there including and most importantly the fence state witness before she takes for mr boies takes the stand back i think if the court when you're using or confer coaching or telling her what to do if it's not unusual it's not necessary only unusual it's not tried to get inside the united states a number of times she was very nervous this wasn't something any you forgot to identify him make sure you point to her that would be that and then actually bought out that that wasn't the case and that's witness focus on her testimony but what was critical was mr hugh don't know when the gender of the the woman who was in the vehicle and the only reason that would be critical is whether or not you take what i ask you said on a videotape to truth but it could also have been offered for the credit the credibility determination the the videotape yes well the videotape was almost an hour long the jury had plenty of time to listen to his story and to observe his demeanor it's the last portion of the videotape where he's doing very little and he doesn't change his story that we objected to it's a portion where it's the agents making all these very prejudicial statements and you  had stated on the stand that she hoped to be able to purchase a day in the united states as well and what did the government do during their closing argument with respect to her you know that mr jenks did on up bob barker come on down on the changed her story who is said she hoped to get a benefit from the government and so and who the government ended it was nervous on the stand and so this clearly is a harmless error the government