isn't that and though to sort of put you on notice the there is at least going to be some attempt to say this is that and sent it and therefore if you wanted to go out and find an expert to say no this is not the hand  and fifty in the appellant the quota resident who traveled from south dakota to texas on multiple occasions d for the purpose of sexually abusing twin seven year old girls who resided in texas with their mother in helen attracted the attention of law enforcement in south dakota that was based on indications that he was sharing child pornography online that led local law enforcement to getting a search warrant and his residence was searched multiple electronic devices were seized and among the thousands of images d of child pornography that were discovered on the devices there were images of him abusing the victims in texas at trial both it was also come corroborated by evidence of the defendant's travels which included bank statements airline records and is employment records the evidence of the appellant's guilt in this case i overwhelming this is not a close actual case regarding it the issue of mr campbell is testimony on the  comparison of the photographs the appellant received sufficient pretty strong notice d of the intent to offer expert testimony regarding that hand or finger comparison ultimately it was a it was a comparison of a single finger in  a photograph that was taken pursuant to a search warrant compared to a cropped still image from one of the videos that was on its devices the district court found proper the thought was on notice in november of two thousand and eighteen when a search warrant was executed d and photos of his hands were taken there were no deadlines set by the court that were missed  expert notice filed on march th was prespective it essentially said this is what we anticipate we're going to hear from this expert the district court could found that case with highly technical or highly scientific evidence it really was cropped zoomed in comparison and of the images of a finger images were enhanced social the similarities and as we stated in our brief the images themselves when shown up close with arrows pointing out to a similar that does not in turn mean that it's pretty difficult the pilot was able to fully cross examine mr m on including on the reason for the timing is him report as well as in the thousands of images that he could have looked at you only looked at two images he was able to be the poem was able to put cross examine on all those issues and this is the issue of prejudice because appellate is made no showing give trial counsel enough time to go out and have another expert look at the record and potentially poke holes in the methodology used by by the government's expert your honor i think that i would really the essence of his testimony was let's zoom in on these photographs and point out the ways in which these two fingers are similar and i think that's an important distinction between this the t of expert testimony that we're talking about versus for instance d n a testimony which relies on machine generated add up and there is a considerable scientific underpinning that you have to understand to be able to present it through the testimony under oath to that expert or to cross examine such an expert this was a little bit more intuitive i would argue and not the kind of testimony that required think dramatically understates his involvement in the case as we mentioned in our brief pro record testified at the suppression hearing this case because he was on the phone with the appellant the day the search warrant was executed so he was a witness regarding any testimony that would have happened regarding what happened at the house  could have testified other that it sort of looks like a little hard while technique your honor that is not the only thing that mr wrecker car wrecker testified to at the suppression hearing he also talked about the to maybe not directly related get the suppression if you but let this kind of information in front of the jury in an effort to make him seem that he was socially inept unable to make his own decisions u health diagnosis we received notice a lot of those notices were very cryptic and so we certainly saw the potential that mr ritter could end up testifying as a defense witness also testifying described things about the appellant it talked about the prior child pornography case in state court he described that as a farce he described the he also described the appellant as a smart guy he also had described made made statements suggesting that the allegations were somehow him being taken banjo by by the parents of of the victims  so he had made statements characterizing what the appellant did that we st saw might end up being relevant defendant depending on how the defense proceed  pursuing the circumstances of the interview and the search even though the court has ruled that evidence is coming in and so for those reasons we st saw that  i respectfully disagree your honor the cover sheets i would say the information that's in the cover sheets falls into three different categories because some of the cover sheets really just continued information  guy's one of the ones who referred to is exhibit nineteen what exhibit nineteen actually has on it is the make and model of the device which is visible in the pictures of the device that we're attached it's you know what i would characterize as machine generated data here's what the fall make model serial number of this device is and that's not statements so i would say some of the cover hits really don't can stand a statement by any of files where the cover she includes the device that the items were taken from and then information about the files that are contained in that ex it includes file names the location that the files were found at the created those are also all i would submit not hearsay statements are not statements by a person and they're machine generated data  that we could have made it more clear that what the device contained was a summary of machine or what the exhibit contained cover he contained was a summary of machine generated data the one we reference i mean  two is a summary of of the interview and we don't generally admit three o two was that i'm aware of right i agree with that absolute your honor but i would i would d say that a three o two is a summary of a person's state and so absolutely that would be subject to hearsay rules what i'm what i'm describing now is a exhibit that is a summary of essentially a summary of machine generated data the one  refer to in our brief specifically is it the cover sheet at exhibit twenty what exhibit twenty actually has on it because to get into the st setting is device information so it has the  testimony or this exhibit is created by the special agent that did the forensic exam special agent russell that statement that i just read is consistent with what he testified to said it also makes a little bit more easy to digest his testimony there were approximately two hundred exhibits in this case many of the exhibits were ever more evidence of this nature  own and i guess i should talk about there is sort of a rd category of covers it's and those are ones where the the one i referenced was exhibit twenty here's the item number on the evidence and it says exhibit contents it says the exhibit consists of a document containing searched items and through this they were covered from the internal memory of the apple i've described above this document contains a total of four key word searches d containing terms that are associated with child erotica and child pornography that's a characterization absolutely that's a statement that's an opinion of the expert it was consistent with this testimony and the judge gave limiting instructions regarding this opinion about child erotica and child pornography there was a limiting instruction on the issue on this issue similar to the other cover sheets where the witness op d who was the person appearing in the image and the judge similarly gave limiting instructions in that regard so i appreciate the court's concern but i think really the objectionable pieces are somewhat limited and they were addressed appropriately with limiting instructions court considered it the judge found the court district court found properly that the developed was not in custody at the time of the interview it did not invoke his right to counsel and his statements were not of data and graphs that were useless trying to show point by point what this information was and there was a substantial methodology that was used that was attached to the us as for or it was very similar to what d n a evidence this case will be submitted decided in the course