bruce's trial counsel and i raised said not because they said just because when you're looking it over at this at this point as appellate counsel at this time and i'm looking over the record there are certain things that happen at the trial that that strike i don't agree with that you know why not and i think the reason i don't agree with that is because he's a maverick ok many of us americans and we have a very close relationship with our spouses some of us closer than i wish perhaps but when my wife were to tell me ok i just got this phone call from your friend i want one told me that if you don't come up with that money he's going to hurt me he's going to hurt you he's going to hurt our children that's not going to have an impact on me that's not going to have an effect on me as far as whether or not i should do a transaction with mr maher i mean that's what it is if the if that threat had never been pas you know if you don't get if you don't pay me the money i'm going to kill you that's not whether that's true or not is not the issue at this point it's the mere statement itself that is being made that is the issue that's like a contractor or an act of love on a hearsay sort of thing but it's not hearsay perhaps it's not relevant i mean you know that maybe a different level of look at it is perhaps because it was passed on to the silver broke so it's not relevant but i just don't see how that could not be relevant to mr brooks the state of mind frank samantha can't come in all this and say because of my contact to joe he's been entrapped ok now you may say well there is this fine line i mean isn't that what you're doing here but that's not what we're doing first of all silver br for this evidence not to come it is that we say are we going to ok that sort of conduct are we going to say it's ok for it to exclude when a person is facing a trial for me going to jail for virtually the rest of his life the fact  months of time i mean the government was very well mr brooks didn't want to do any transactions because he was being you know he was being a little bit you know careful about what he was doing we would say that he didn't want to do julian transactions and when we look at it compared to other doing that the trial court made in this case and i'm talking about the other rulings is for example you know obviously the credibility of mr wong was was crucial in the credibility of the agent lost and was crucial in this case but you know that was the whole case and mist of roughs attempted to discredit the credibility of of of mr thousand dollars back from mr brooks and mr morris had to pay telephone business is that we would say possibly to explain some of the cash that he had laying around there are other factors ever involved in this case clearly fundamental you know your honor then this concept of a threat being made to me one spouse and to say that that can't come in whether or not that's a reversible you know whether and i think causes the whole gets to be reversed is it is perhaps  grammar asked you earlier what's the tie between the threat to the wife and the conduct or the impact on the phone book and there doesn't seem to be anything in the record that shows a tough love are as we know the defendant's that i mean i realize what you're saying that he they would have to be some evidence that mr probus reacted in a certain way as a result of it that it was very distraught about him and so forth and so on and i i wish that that was in the record but what's was you know this was going on for months i mean i wasn't you know the first time they had a meeting yet a meeting with age and also this meeting wasn't recorded you know in this meeting in which supposedly mr brooks had you know it talked about how he started rolling drugs soon after he got out of prison and all that and that's why the mr lawson's credibility was obviously very crucial in this all matter as well because if the jury were to believe mr lawson and agent lawson and there's no doesn't happen all the time but i mean for the most part i mean one of the things we do doing while here you honor is we talk about you know you're supposed to you know believe police officers know more than you believe you know anyone else out there you know you want to stand there and the reason you tell them it's offered to go to the state of mind of randy juan during these calls and quote so the position below taken by the defense was that it was offered specifically for the state of mind over any wrong which is completely irrelevant and i agree with the court that the thing that is relevant is one of the relevant and was relevant in the case of far was the state of mind of the defendant and then back up for a second  relevant the only the only pop possible relevance would be to explain her husband's state of mind in late august just before he brought the drugs over that he was going to be scared he was in tracked now that would be relevant to the husband state of mind the defense state of mind my point is in terms of this constitutional argument is the guy they got they absolutely got that information the defendant want to show that his wife had told him about a threat and alleged threat made by randy long through the wife and the wreck it's very clear that he got that the wife testified that radio one called her that he was very angry that he made her very upset she actually did get out this threat and the bell was rung but the court pulled it back and instructed the jury to disregard the statements she was quite anxious to to get that she testified that she was scared she was scared for her life she was scared for the life of her children and that she told her husband all go over there and bust somebody's head up if if you didn't get his drugs and so i understand where the courts coming from that maybe it's not really hearsay because it's not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but this defendant was raising the issue of outrageous state of mind but we're not going to get in all that underlying stuff we're not going to get let you get in there to your statement of belief for reasons you reason behind it because if you want to say something you have to be subject to cross examination if the court was somehow tempted to take to not adopt the government's argument and to take a step to take a second look at i'm running to take a back up position you know i was reading the record again this past weekend one thing that became very very clear to me that actually was never asked in the record and actually that's that's before that's what is necessary to bring it full circle if you want to somehow say something about the defendant state of mind you start with when you want where you want what do you say to the life but then he says the question was never asked for what it wanted to without subjecting the defendant to cross examination it can't do it on this particular record you can't do it on this record because in this case the defense counsel some simply never made all the necessary jobs never made all the less necessary the full links were never made and i think there was a very strong argument that it's that it's hearsay with regard to the thorny argument that was made out of touch on that very lightly the court clearly did not abus getting the hands on material this was a disagreement between an employer and his supervisor about a stuffed bird being kicked around the office and whether some you know it wasn't it has nothing to do with the investigation it didn't happen during the time  i would need to address it my first point about the the the scrolling this and given his incredible apparent lack of memory and given his his statement that he just simply didn't recall i would have been in titles to impeach him not something silly but i would have been entitle to one and a half minutes so i mean i think i do wish to put the case in context in the courts already made reference to it this is a very very strong case for the government we had a confession to count one we had the work of an undercover agent over records the trial attorney commenting about how wonderful the defense counsel is on the record as well i mean they're both serve a purpose trying to strengthen the rights of john interesting enough before she made that comment she was criticizing the trial counsel your honor for not completing the full circle  that they made or perhaps they're not good speakers or perhaps they're you know they they may not look good in front of a jury but that doesn't change the fact as far as rules of evidence damages and change the fact  objection i mean there's no there's no issue all that i mean you know when we go ahead in with we have these rules and we have an adversarial procedure we all are expected to follow certain rules that go here and machine and says well perhaps you know it would have made a difference because i just would i went on and i just would have done anything all i had opportunities were right that i have sat there and i floundered in front of in front of the you know judges are i floundered in front of in front of