tony had already been provided if you had an objection that said this witness shouldn't have been allowed to offer x testimony and x testimony had an impact that argument i understand but that's not the argument the argument is created the need for the instruction but then the failure to ask for the instruction is just a failure to elsa for the instruction i guess i don't understand why the fact that cross examination cost do all sort of testimony does anything to tell the court not to give the appropriate instruction when that happens i don't ok so are cases in that situation they're supposed to be an instruction so i want you to assume for the sake of my question that it was erroneous on the part of the court not to give the instruction what's your response to the prejudice argument that was made that this officers testimony was central and there is really not much evidence of a conspiracy of the workers well i do hate to assume that because i don't think it's well i will h a prosecutor who has used one witness and mixed up absolutely you're not answering my question at all and you're free not to do it but it would really be helpful to me if you're well i'm sorry i don't i i'm explaining that i was trying to explain why there was no prejudice in the situation because in this situation in the situation where the defense is the one who has is asking the fact questions the fundamental problem that all of this court's decisions have identified with the dual role witness isn't there that fundamental problem is is that the jury might give under deference to the witness's testimony as a fact witness because of what they still might do that they don't know the difference between regular and cross examination and what was the other evidence of conspiracy here and it was almost that so i was on the step one that's the concern is that they might give undue deference here if they gave on two different deference to undue deference to the answers that the defense counsel was asking that's what the defense counsel wanted the defense counsel was trying to get some facts out of this witness the fa wanted so there could be no prejudice in her to the benefit of the defendant given the unusual factual situation posts what was that other evidence of conspiracy the evidence of conspiracy was primarily the  conversations this this this case was based on primarily taped conversations between mr defoe and his coconspirator his main supplier  taylor that's the most important if there was also evidence that one mr defoe was arrested there was evidence of drug dealing and the location where he was that he thought he was a drug dealer there was and that was for a for be evidence that a very large seizure of cocaine had been made some months before that this particular conspiracy was charged but that was basically the evidence in the case so  i don't dispute that the taped conversations were important evidence in this case they were they were built to trump back to the first issue in this case which is whether there was improper opinion testimony in the expert expert and and our own along force one officer interpreted the meaning of common terms that clear to the jury first of all i question although it's improper testimony i question whether that could ever be reversible error oh freeman discusses that very point where or in that case the witness  the word particular to mean details that seems obvious that the jury probably understood that when the word particulars was use that the speaker meant details but the court found that there was harmless and it makes perfect sense if all the witness is doing is explaining what is obvious to the jury it can't possibly have an effect on the truth for it looks like my time is just about up and are there any other counsel since we have so little time let me just ask you quickly what what evidence came in him from an officer that you believe most damning in should have been stricken under the guidelines of freeman i'm glad you asked that i got six statements one i'll be ready in a few days to step it up three i'll just wait until you know for we don't both be out there five you ready yet six where  at on the count all of these statements are common words used in common ways and they were interpreted at length by this officer officer door who gave both expert and lay opinion and this was during direct examination and the government cements that this expert but i submit that this isn't even expert this is like an expert on the english language he gave on page twenty five of the government's brief and twenty six these statements are laid out and there's full paragraphs as to what these one submitted and the cross examination didn't undo the harm that was done because each single little statement had a whole paragraph of the government's theory theory they were allowed to just creepy over and over again this is a supplier in a distributor to having a drug transaction and that's that was closing argument but they were allowed to do it with every question another whole paragraph about why this isn't a conspiracy why this is a drug transaction and these are simple little words like i'll be ready in a few days what that means is this supplier and you know it it's completely unnecessary unhelpful under rule seven i want to step up to and part of the government trying i mean it's well known slang means you know i would agree that slang they can interpret there are some words that were ok like easy you know and drug terms that were fine for them to interpret but these are common words that well that's not what the that's what how they do so i mean i think there could have been objections to saying that this isn't he this is outside of his expertise he's supposed to be an expert on drug distribution and alaska but instead he's allowed to testify about common words he's an  lawyer and the defense lawyer says you know so you've testified about this but you say that this means x but it doesn't really mean y and then maybe bring somebody else in the loop as a witness to show that it really means watched a common term that raises  question of the mind of the jury as to whether the government has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt well i would submit that a lot of these phrases aren't really x versus why it's like you ready yet and so you ready yet means are you ready you know but  what it means to maybe do you and me but perhaps in a drug serving this is an entirely different meaning that's for that's the kind of context that this arises yeah i would submit that that's just the government's theory and it's not evidence that