government to impeach his testimony with his prior conduct everything comes out in his background and terms of his criminal history prior misconduct under the guise of a for b or inextricably intertwined your honor mr vogel was denied a fair trial by the introduction of all these items that really were not in a strict bullying or crying or properly brought under for a four b specifically the first part is that the government made a most of all let's suppose counsel that you had a case involving a bank robbery and the government reached a plea deal with the guy who'd actually gone in the think and held up t case we're talking about this five with the nickel is the car is the driver of the getaway car and the guy who robbed the bank is asked by the government why did you hire this guy i hired this guy because he told me i'd been in prison for different times honor that would not be if for the for the trial a getaway driver the fact that he had been in prison four times and was going to be that the getaway driver and a bank robber trusted him is not relevant to the issues for the got away driver here wants to make sure that the guy will stay out there and drive the car no matter what happens and isn't that the evidence of your client being disbarred and spending time in prison with with drug smugglers wasn't that his resume well that w because a drug smuggler was looking for someone that would help him buy a house with laundered money right that was that was the government's theory of the case yes but the issue is that he wasn't looking for the realtor of the year he was looking for someone who would help him commit a crime and if if mr enablement the government's witnesses intent was ever at issue perhaps that question would have been proper why did you hire this dealers and many people you know were criminals and for most people that wouldn't be a reference but in my situation the fact that he told me he went to prison so that he would not have to testify against people that he'd been involved in was a positive mr vogel to help you now that would have opened the door to mr mr able in testifying why but that wasn't an issue the issue it means it was it was it was an issue a time a trial why you know mr ableman did what he did the have anything to do with mr vogels intent and if the government had tried to say well this is relevant to his intent obviously it wasn't it wasn't relevant to his intent because it has nothing to do with mr a woman and it wasn't in a correctable intertwine mr vogel in this are able men prior to this this money laundering conspiracy had not been dealing together so the government still the problem using the court hypothetical is that the would be doing what he did it was just whether mr why mr bobo his intent what he did what he did and the evidence that he did and if you can think of any more prejudicial evidence in fact as it came in it even exceeded the government's taint mr vogels defense that he did not know that the that this was a laundered money it really didn't go through the ultimate issue of his intent to just go do you know it was just propensity evidence the senior counsel in creating all  that he was trying to launder some of was drugged money by by this although it wasn't part of the conspiracy wasn't charged as part of the conspiracy and the government's proffer regarding the relevancy of it was different as the as the  but it's not used to show that he had some wealth it is used to show that you know if you use the show knowledge but it has no bearing on knowledge i mean the fact that he may not have paid taxes for the years is not prove that he knew case it's it doesn't show that mr vogel knew that this was hasheesh money and or drug money i mean the fact that he might have known he might have known the lives of not his money didn't wan specific element they had to prove in this particular case and it does unlike in the case of taylor this case doesn't show that mr vogel knew that that money back failing to pay the taxes on this mind they knew it was drug money danger is people involved in this this conspiracy it's presidential to mr vogels defense that he didn't know that this money was it was drug money now individually perhaps the errors would together denied mr vogel a fair trial and a prejudice is the fence they brought today allow the government to use all his background for under the guise of of three elements that the government had to prove first they showed that vogel intended to become involved in this conspiracy with ableman second they showed the formation of that drug trafficking crime that he had gone to prison because he was not willing to testify against the other people that he had committed these crimes with and that he had been just part by making these statements vogel was setting forth his credentials it was his criminal resume to a woman who he was hoping to engage in criminal conduct with so both from vocals perspective she was putting forth his credentials and then ableman testified as the court has already quoted a woman's testimony that this was a positive reference he realized through these statements that vocal was legally trained he was knowledgeable and experienced in drug trafficking and she was trustworthy he would go to prison before he would turn against mr a so the statements that came in were not first it didn't matter whether or not the statements were true and so and the court limited and the government limited the use of this testimony to knowledge and state of mind of both vocal and ableman so it was not simply a woman tatum mind that was at issue it was the state of minds of both of these players because the government had to prove an agreement between the two ableman and vo to someone's prior convictions however given the probative value of this evidence on the very hard to prove element of knowledge intense and agreement that are difficult to prove in any conspiracy case she chose walker recognize that high property value and balance that with the risk that was minimized by the limiting instruction that the court gave both at the time of the testimony and at the end of the trial and then the government supplemented that fight when the government mentioned the evidence in closing argument reiterated the fact that it doesn't matter whether or not these were mobile claims that he had advocated this information or that whether or not it was actually true about his criminal history the importance of this testimony was that vocal made the claims and what were the circumstances under which someone would make such claims except unless he knew that he was involved with somebody who was involved with drug trafficking money so the district court property properly limited this evidence and and therefore addressed any potential pressures the could have come from the evidence and the riveting instruction  the testimony and in addition to the overwhelming evidence of the conspiracy together so overwhelming that even if the court had committed error that error would be harmless in this case because the evidence in this case was overwhelming there were bank records that showed convoluted bank transactions where money from ableman accounts and accounts in the middle east that were funded with drug money came eventually to well was own pocket through third party bank account in the united states and the bank records were not contested a woman's testimony was very complete and thorough and it was corroborated with those bank records come one who is in the criminal world needs to have this kind of a resume before him before he will trust somebody to engage in further criminal conduct w with respect to the false invoices that were created the arguments are very similar i think that the the big difference between the false invoices and the and these statements about mobiles prior criminal history is that the fault invoices were not nearly as prejudicial because because of the nature of the crimes that he that the evidence that came in the facts of this case against vocal about him tell conviction i don't think that that it would probably be outweighed by the risk of prejudice but but getting back to the question of the just barman i think that was suppose one of his prior robberies was the robbery of a homeless shelter always see the point in what's even if you accept the government's theory about resume the what relevance is disbarment i think that the relevance has to do with the fact that ableman was looking for someone who was not only willing to go to prison before he would snatch on his coconspirators but someone who was correct unfortunately that that is that is the testimony that the information that was conveyed by the fact that he was disbarred was that he had legal training he came in in this form because that's the way ableman learned from vogel i did not know exactly what he was going to say well he was going to talk about this morning yes that it would have been just as easy to have him say i wanted a smart guy and this guy had legal training told me it was a lawyer the pretrial ruling the chief judge walker gave that that this was all admissible for the effect that it had on a woman and vocal state of mind in admitting these these prior  what had happened to him i think that that that that is also important that not only is that the effect that it had on a woman but it was vocal making the claims in that way as opposed to vocal simply saying i am a lawyer  he admitted or fabricated because whether or not these claims were true or not is irrelevant as the jury was instructed was significant both to show both state of mind in in disclosing all of this information or fabricating process the government to do things and say well some stuff might be too inflammatory but i would contend that the all the material the air deuced in this time of trial that the four years in prison t felony conviction for drug trafficking and cocaine and a disbarment is extremely prejudicial extremely inflammatory and the issue that somehow able men needed you know needed all this information to trust people in the only smuggle drugs and also the laundered money allegedly through mr vogel only but he had other people and other accounts that he submitted money to so this is the the context of mr ableman to contend that if the fact if he said look i want to deal with you that could have been limited to that does he have to the government have to be able to prove that he was convicted of of you know drug offense that's unrelated he's been disbarred and all these other things and it's gone too far