severance should be granted even when i joined her as proper when there is a danger that a joint trial would prevent the jury from reliably determining guilt or innocence or when the joint trials want to deprive the defendant of a specific trial right in this case the joint trial effectively deprived the jury excuse me or from a reliably determining innocence or guilt because one defendant sanchez raised an entrapment fact that you've previously been convicted of kidnapping which kidnapping occurred over a drug debt so what the jury heard against mr sanchez the allegedly a trap the defendant was that he was a drug addict he had a long and painful history of drug addiction he was trying to get clean and he had had a couple of priors for possession for sale but those prior convictions involve relatively small amounts of drugs which could be consistent either with possession for sale or possession for personal use since he was an addict and he used a lot of drugs as he testified to now this is a case where the defense is what we call mutually antagonistic essentially if the jury believe i don't think first of all that every single alternative has result in conviction of my client the notion of mutually attacking a stick defense is that if one defendant is believed the other will be convicted and if the other is believed it you they still might have a point in my client they might have because they might have said well he's a liar we think he's a liar because i was just there as a prior convicted felon he's been involved in drug deals we don't like his looks we don't briefly is the question of the special agents expert testimony now it's well established of course that law enforcement agents can provide some testimony regarding the general principles of drug trafficking but in this case  an issue is that the agents testimony not discussing his belief based on the record that there had been counter surveillance that was there was activity consistent with counter surveillance but precise testimony that developed body of law which talks about how certain conclusions by law enforcement agents should be excluded under seventy two because they're not helpful to the jury and this is the type of conclusion essentially what the law enforcement agents testimony wa was a preview of the closing argument and in this case the prosecution got the benefit both of the the testimony regarding the types of behavior which again legitimately admitted testimony and the conclusion that oh i available as they took none of them and they went around a couple times what you people are and it isn't doesn't help the jury was trying to be exposed to some expertise as to what that means and what was a drug deal what you are i'm not i'm not really contesting that the agent can come in and say this is what they did and it's consistent with counter surveillance what i'm objecting to is the ultimate conclusion which is really for the jury the entire drug transaction to basically indicated i want to help matty s i don't even know him and well maybe we don't have to go that way with that story i'll talk to my lawyer those two statements by mr adequately incompetently represent a client but there's an exception to that role and basically if the that's money number one is vital to the defense and number two if there is an alternative means by which the evidence could have been presented there october not right but so i don't even know this man would mean i don't even know him even now that so so that statement wasn't as accurate as was his testimony in the cross examination i think the significance of the statement of your honor number one is that when he testified that he had never met mr mysterious that he had never spoken to mr mysterious in the past if he's indicating that he did not know mr mysterious remember the basis present and produce witnesses and the right to the fact that we undermine to cross examine mr sanchez further because it would have further undermine mr sanchez's credibility and ferocity and i believe based upon all those factors the appropriate standard of review would not be th conspiracy case involving a number of participants in that case the defendant cruz like sanchez here in sort of an entrapment defense and he testified at trial to incriminate a codefendant mis the standard is mutually exclusive or irreconcilable and given this court's finding in the cruise case that these decisions more mutually exclusive are irreconcilable i think it's the similar holding would apply in this case by the government agent and he could have gotten the drugs from another source of supply he could have been lined up on parts of the story not others so it was entirely possible for them to believe sanchez story about entrapment and still find these other defendants not guilty by virtue of thought there was insufficient evidence or perhaps an innocent bystander then again in the case not like to do it in mayfield where as in today there was someone who was stabbed to death and only two defendants present so they pointed the finger at each other but by virtue the facts if you quit one the others guilty this is a different case it's a conspiracy involving multiple participants with different jobs  relied upon by the government i believe in closing government simply sell stance you said these things implicating these defendants but if you leave that aside here's all the other evidence establishing their guilt you don't need to rely on sanchez really the expert did not cross the bounds of seven or four b n and testify and overstep the bounds of what is allowed as far as the defendants intent and i say that because he merely testified that certain actions that were testified to by other witnesses of what the defense view were consistent with different roles in a drug trafficking operation and was helpful to the jury to explain how what might be innocuous conduct driving up and down the parking lot looking around you know on cellphones might actually be evidence of a drug trafficking conspiracy because that's how they work and they work with brokers and they work with lookouts so that was and i think just finishing off that argument what shows that th but also there was a factual dispute about even if these defendants did those actions what did they mean because misty has explained that why he was doing it was because they were looking for a parking spot they were meeting a friend there  he walked out to the car to ask about the happy meal so the jury had to find not only what did they do but what was their intent in doing that and for that reason the expert opinion not go to that area that was something  jury to decide just very briefly back to the separate evidence against each of the defendants as i mentioned there was sort of the counter surveillance activity against both of the defendants and their expert testimony to assist the jury with that type of testimony there was a transcript which showed that there was another person involved in the drug transaction other than sanchez and the confidential informant would you please address the point mysterious asking a question of the defendant or making a statement to the defendant and again this is during the time period when the confidential informant was on the stand and all three of the defendants had an interest in impeaching the denial the specific trial right that is not the case here this condition there was two reasons the defense wanted it in to establish sanchez's knowledge ability regarding firearms to impeach her statements that he didn't know about firearms and to stablish that he was not just a drug user but a drug dealer i think as with the former the district court properly excluded this conviction and because the actual conviction there was no evidence by the that this commission conviction established sanchez's knowledge regarding firearms so i think that i was probably properly excluded as far as sanchez has knowledge about drug dealing in drug debt there is a plethora of that evidence that prison term related to drugs which was not specified in the transcript itself of the conversations with the confidential informant leading up to the drug deal lots of drug lingo it shows his  impeached and again confidential informants testimony strange isn't it if he knows what happens to people who don't pay drug gets he testified that you know how drug deals worked for prejudicial to i mean prior felonies dealing drugs and spent time in prison i think the court felt that the drug prior drug trafficking convictions were more relevant to the facts of this case to directly impeach effective impeachment of a witness much impeachment on anything under the sun and here they have all the tools and as was effectively impeached with the prior felony convictions the prior misdemeanor conviction relating to  reputation for honesty is two prior prison terms in addition to that wind a policeman arrested lying to the court lying to his wife being a drug user buying a brand new nice truck when he had apparently no money prior convictions and the evidence was the same thing one defendant had a stronger link to the drugs in the apartment and then the other and the other one had a plausible your presence defense in terms of the kidnapping conviction and the judge did exclude it under four or three because conviction if it was that it was a kidnapping over a drug debt that was the issue it's a far cry to be involved it's possible for a defendant to argue entrapment when he's been convicted of possession for sale especially when you have relatively and several cajuns were talking about the opportunity that miss bass had to confront and cross examine mr sanchez that cannot be forgotten that the cross examination of mr sanchez occurred a day or two prior to when mr sanchez approached miss sanchez occurred at day or so earlier that was and at this point there was no opportunity to cross examine mr sanchez as to the statements that he made because she had already cross examined him previously and you can't just put it back up on the stand i have the impression