of a bit of peril that was came through the hands of curtis lyon and then went to a hands of kyle hall who subsequently prepared it and injected it into his own friend causing the death of that friend mr trying to admitted he was a drug dealer mr transmitted he had distributed drugs got on the stand and testified the issue was whether the government could tie him to the chain of mr hall was able to say that he had made contact with mr trent that day mr curtis what he was first interviewed said he got them out the dogs from a guy by the name of to inferred that they thought trent was the guy they end up having him testify understand that he got the drugs from trent we wanted to cross examine them to the extent to show that they were facing a mandatory minimum of twenty years both of them because of the death and that because of their cooperation they could get below that number the court of the heroin overdose or what the higher almost people do got what do you mean overdose he just had the normal the normal amount the gross right i don't know what the normal amount as well you should know well i don't use it i don't know you don't know is there any medical evidence in the case yes he had they put he took didn't he take the normal amount of not well  people respond differently if you've been taking heroin for a long time right here to have a higher tolerance for heroin in your system than if your first time you serve where the same goes might have dire consequences but the dog how long headquarters heroin users by why does it kill this person not another person but i can answer that question and i get back i think we're going through all of this because you're trying to tell us why the  cooperators or these two witnesses were facing substantial sentences and she even invited you to propose an alternative word to substantial if that didn't sound big enough somehow but there was no alternative suggested and i it's hard for me to imagine on this record a jury responding differently to twenty years than it responds to substantial these are our heroin dealers the jury's going to have its views about that and they and they know that these people are facing substantial sentences which might influence their testimony my concern is with the word substantial substantial is subjective but the jury but the but the part you're trying to get across is that it's substantial enough that people are going to color their testimony that's what you want to try to think but but but and the jury hears that what's important is to who were using that word substantial we have an audience of fourteen people who likely have never spent a day in jail and my suspicion is any of them would think they were substandard sustain a substantial sentence sentence if they had to spend it all back again so they're going to give these your position the benefit of the doubt because they're going to think even a two year sentence would be pretty substantial and maybe we should be skeptical about these people right but they believe you don't they don't then see the magnitude of the incentive to pay the they were cooperating witnesses testimony that the various me on the margins you know i really you know this district judge thinks that it's better not to nail it down to the exact number of years and the point is is to undermine the testimony and you've just said that maybe it would be undermined if she had said it was a five year sentence or thirteen years sen but i'm interested in showing the magnitude of the incentive like i said in my brief if a jury heard somebody was going to get twenty five dollars to testify they'll think one thing if they hear they're going to get ten thousand dollars well that changes their perspective of how do you how what the incentive is and what if the jury is you're going to get a substantial amount of money means the same thing i mean this this jury and it seems to me we're in the realm of  discretion here we're not in the sixth amendment situation the idea of impeachment from the sentencing benefit is clearly in front of the jury well one thousand nine hundred ninety five this scor states versus akron i made i think i the jury should have enough evidence to proceed to conduct a discriminating appraisal all of the witnesses motives and bias and i think if you tell this jury twenty years as opposed to substantial what reduced all this mandatory minimum for cooperation but substantial would a better method and any burden it was was necessary they received a substantial sense wouldn't carry it out but that's when you go well i  good morning your honor saturday please the court greg walters on behalf united states and judge would you are correct that were outside of the sixth amendment that's not implicated here because he was given the opportunity to bring out the motive credibility or potential biases of these witnesses by using your face in a substantial mandatory minimums isn't much easier just to say twenty years i mean honestly here we have this issue on appeal you know because she decides to substitute the word substantial and honestly you know this jury knows that this is a harrowing case right there's no question about that and it's hard for me to believe that they'd be so swept away by the notion of twenty years that they wouldn't evaluate the evidence justice dispassionately as they do here in word substantial and maybe more accurately and i agree that a real aren't yours ever ever told what what potential sentence for a witness and it's my buddy well not for defender but for witnesses but i think it gets to the point of the broad discretion the court has there been any do judges do that judges i bought heroin from trent and the jury hears he's going to get a substantial reduction in the otherwise mandatory minimum sentence that he would have because he's helping the government out so there's he's not being sentenced in this proceeding he's going to be sentenced in some other proceeding right correct john so so you're in a situation where the judge could either say there's a most judges do not want to have the years of their sentence recited to a juror for a witness or anybody because once the jurors are told you know twenty years this that doesn't matter who it's for now they a very delicate process dealing with juries you telling them too much too little stimulating their interest and they go out you know maybe they do some some google research google what's mandatory what's in there what's a mandatory minimum and all sorts of information i thought she didn't actually mention that i thought she just allowed the gov allowed the fact to be brought out that in exchange for their testimony the government was going to advocate for a lesser sentence but did she ever going to now turn mandatory minimum she didn't she allowed defense counsel to use the term quote substantial mandatory minimum if you are facing a substantial mandatory minimum but no number of years attached to it correct and i think the point is that the benefit that a cooperate in witness expects can expect to get is what the government is going to ask for off a sentence and that is unknown in this case when they're testifying it's not some abstract number of twenty years  that the benefit alternately for a witness could be very little or it could be substantial in a good example is if we get into the context of mandatory life in prison and i've had witnesses face mandatory life in prison get a substantial reduction to forty years in prison but there's not a lot of difference in a jury's mind between right in prison and forty years in prison especially when that witness is forty thirty forty years old and so it  used the term nebulous to not be able to attach twenty years to that tensional sense or face an absent cooperation it's equally nebulous to throw out before a jury twenty years but not know the expected benefit and the government wouldn't have been told these witnesses that you can expect x off your sentence based on your cooperation these were not c agreements and so the jury is then left with twenty years nullification issue without putting something completely in context of exactly what benefit are they going to get which was unknown at the time of trial be on they were expecting a reduction your honor that's what that's jury i i don't think anybody would want to serve the mandatory minimum i'm facing i mean so you know where years attached absolutely not what i find most troublesome about the government's case is that plus city of medical have the misfortune to have it not through my dress by him but through these intermediaries it ends up with someone who is who is especially susceptible now trent should be blamed and pardon trent should be fully because trent was a regular supplier of kyle hall who would at times use two people within his conspiracy curtis land in the individual re identified as j b in our brief to distribute and what i do know i mean first medical examiner to testify and secondly there was alcohol involved before taking the heroin so what is common in these here when cases that i would guess is common here is mixed intoxication which comes back to the standard in burgess against united states about but for causation that but for the heroin that he would have lived and i think from my reading of the medical examiner's testimony that the heroin distributor that the people you are selling to have drug problems that look everybody who sells food is taking a risk that the consumer will once in a while rarely someone dyer's well i'm just curious what is it that causes that death is that something thing peculiar to the habits or the physiology of the recipient or is this something that here  i think we're not dealing with a i think what can be unique is for this is not being made in a laboratory by birth purity levels exactly the same every time or will affect the same idea who you're selling to if you're just selling a uniform quantity of generally harmless heroin i'm just wondering why why she get the twenty five years  selling a uniform substance all the time he's not the manufacture even to mr trance testimony when he took the stand he talked about how he would go across the river to meet his hair one supplier so there's a chain of are high circuits not exactly recall off the top of my head so counts as punishment him thirteen years yes i believe it was closer than thirty forty ok well i think we will take the case hundred took this appointment did you not yes sure we appreciate very much you help to the court and to your client thanks as well to the government thank you