the in my it's a record is the sum and substance of the telephone call in this case it's about a pain generates nothing in this telephone call it clearly points out that the call involved drugs or for any who've purported to be a friend of my client is accusing her of being a drug runner to chicago well you know the government says and the judge ruled that that was just background information well you know you could say background information about any kind of statements could could be said that the background information the problem if you can drive a truck through that kind of an exception and i think the law that the district court did give the limiting instruction to not only that what was  request but no no limiting instruction was requested that if there was objections up to a point then the lawyer didn't object to the to an additional statement made by this trial far off is what is incumbent upon counsel to ask for a limiting instruction well i think it i think it has but again that's part of my additional argument about whether there's ineffective assistance and so i put questions whether or not there's a waiver on that objection as a result of the failure  and it's a violation of the confrontation clause because here's why that's a statement it's not it could have been so that background information would have bands i heard from this woman margarita she told me to talk to the tisza but when when so you're not if you're not disagreeing with the proposition that the government can set the stage what you are disagreeing with is the manner in which they did ask exactly right and there's got to be a line drawn somewhere because otherwise why can't you just say any hearsay statements that explain the background or in this other not because the thomas rehabber case talks about that and i started that in my brief that there's a point and i think the line was crossed here because it's how much more prejudicial statement can you have than this person who supposedly a friend of my client accusing her of being a drug runner my client has no way to confront that he got the square mile first of claiming that she made the statement it's clearly to me and her with the intention of trying to use her it's just getting to the person for whom your theory of the case she was running drugs or in order to get access to the drugs right according to his testimony you have that you know the government's going to say well that's in response to an attack on the credibility of the witness well the vulture in your shoes came off in the testimony of agent kaiser when he insisted the government introduced the exhibit capital source how do you open the door to improper vouching by the government agency going on the question is whether or not defense counsel has raised the issue with regard to the motivation of the informant testify and whether he's going to color his testimony in our case boss does that when that happens the government is permitted to introduce some evidence in response as to what his motivation is why can't they introduce the agent's opinion that the witness test followed the agreement the agreement which says i shall tell the truth that's posturing that's that's botching kind of by a back door technique but it's passing because when you look at it it's pretty subtle and in terms of  they're not stupid they're going to look at that and they're going to say well agent kaiser we don't know what they did in the jury room on this on this case with such limited evidence and that's why this type of evidence was so prejudicial that's why it's point there because it comes it in this close case with such a lack of evidence on the government's part being a mother i have been using kaiser and actually he even bolster the witnesses credibility before he even took the witness stand because this came up to differ i think it is plain eric certainly goes to the heart of the case because this case came down to the credibility of all far over just my client's credibility about what that phone call was about because of the lack of other evidence now they're going to point out there were mind you there school lived in mexico can this help me out not a confession anything in detail i don't think it rises to the level of saying that she's confessed to anything so you know you can always want to spend that's enough when you add them together with the lack of evidence and just again look at that the transcript for several second telephone call and the lack of any other evidence in light of that these trial lawyers became very he knew in two thousand and he just i thought i'd have to buy that he owned a garage or a repair shop in in two thousand two thousand and one that he owned it for a period of nine months a lot of people hanging around that shop and mr chico hung around at that shop he closed the shop in two thousand and one and lost contact with him so there's at least a two year period where he had heard his voice on the phone we had talked to him wait where there was there was no  and the same in a telephone conversation that much like yes and the cases that we cited there and our brain why isn't that a jury that that's a classic job for the jury as a matter of it's not enough ok and work is what you say to me through the proposition as a matter of law that we should declare that to be inadequate so that no reasonable jury could conclude from that much contact if you could identify back  and then two years later a phone conversation the question of hearsay statements and the issue of the witness taking the stand and providing an explanation for the jury as to why the government initiated investigation involved it's one that was later on a recorded meeting he had learned some information which he described the jury very specifically as some information that she was running drugs to chicago he then explained about a specific person all face to face meeting he had with this woman and the discussions make the connection to the dealer and the evidence played out exactly like that it was it was small it was not a huge amount of evidence involving this what he had been going to be but it was information that explain connection the phone call was played to the jury and spanish which was language was spoken and then a transcript of that was read to the jury so that they could follow what exactly transpired and and what's very significant i think and what the jury probably relied on and we defer to them is that within a very short time period after that phone call and after that discussion at ballots i'm going to have my man call you and very vague discussions without specific reference to drugs which is typical of a drug transaction on the phone or drug dealings and i found a very short time later the confidential source gets a phone call from her good girl and then we have a whole agreement what he's really saying is i don't think he ever lied to us either well what he didn't say and so i don't believe his lie before him which which i think is very crucial  also lied to you or that he misled you when anything now that certainly would open the door to somebody say no in all of my contact with mr all pharo i've never had any reason to believe that mr o'farrell was lying to me much he thought paid by the government jury decided the evidence and that's kind of goes back again to specialty of the evidence which was raised by the defendants for the first time such as i can tell here today because it wasn't really specific witness brief so we have jeff to that rule there is no rule of law nor should there be a legal requirement that there be cooperation there is a legal requirement that the jury find facts and decide credibility and the jury did that in this case  the only one i can think of off the top of it becomes somewhat absurds to me at many of the crimes we tried to stand last week we have the jury system for reason and requests twelve independent minds to decide on printer and have her tell the jury the story but there's no there's no indication margarita wasn't available well there's first go there's no question the trial always look better in hindsight you can always think of brilliant things that you should done after the results are in the questions whether or not reply got a fair trial and whether there was enough evidence to convict i agree with you there but a fair trial and when she's looking at fifty seven months in federal prison she should be given a fair trial a know you absolutely agree with that statement so but to say that somehow this margarita wasn't available that's not true the second thing is to try on page thirty nine of my brain when she was kind of making this well answer usually we did actually meet them we don't use them anymore in question and during the course of this investigation did you have any reason to believe that the confidential source in this case caramel violated any of the terms of this agreement no clearly the that all farrah was motivated by greed and that the more people he talked to the more money he was going to be paid now why isn't that enough to at least opens the door to what the terms of the thank you and i don't have that very much time left that i would like to address a couple of great if that were your glass case on the calendar and work if you misspoke and think that there's many situations where there's only one witness to a crime  this was insufficient without going into a bright line rule if there is a certain amount of contact and i think well clearly there must be some point where we could know reasonable trier of fact could