mr hamdan from offering testimony relevant to the key element of the crime scene is charged with namely the element of knowledge trooper glassner and sergeant fresh were police officers involved in a prior arrest of mr hamdan in twenty twelve in wisconsin mr hamdan intended to offer the testimony of these witnesses to establish that he was not aware that it can adenoids where controlled substances this would have materially impacted him to his defense at trial if he had been able to establish that he did not know that the substance that he was distributing was either a controlled substance or an analogue during the time frame described in the twenty sixteen indictment he would have been a defense to his guilt for the charged offenses i wanted to first talk about the element of knowledge itself when a controlled substance is an analogue the government has to establish that the defendant knew that he was dealing with a substance regulated under the controlled substances act or the substances or the analogue act or that he knew the specific analog that he was distributing the government never even attempted to make that second argument there was no testimony try to show that mr hamdan knew that accelerant leavened the specifics substance that he was charged with that mr hamdan knew that it was x l are eleven and in fact most of the testimony in the case talked about these substances as key to or spikes because that is what it's known as on the street if you well and it can encompass a wide variety of different chemical substances some of which at any given time were or were not illegal during that time frame in the early twenty ten where it was changing from we are those things weren't illegal to finally now almost everything is illegal as far as i can understand it and during that time frame there was that a lot of specific things that were you similarly named and there was also a later dropped claim for some of that money from a third party legal product you could actually purchase it at the seven eleven at the gas station etc and that was one of the things that we have that the defense was barred from bringing up a trial and the only reason it out at all was that one of the government's he believes that the chief says that he was dealing with was legal that is part part of the reason that he believes that is because he had been previously and that substances had been taken from him that he considered to be che to now again it was a different technical substance but for all intents and purposes and for his knowledge and for most people's knowledge it's just p two or spice and she had had that taken from her he'd been arrested he'd been and they'd been arrested in twenty fourteen i don't know that you had the same kind of general public knowledge that you have now there are more chase says now that are in the news about these substances and and other additives that have been added to such substances but at the time in twenty four when he was arrested i don't i don't know that that that would be a valid argument to make on behalf of the government now you know if they were to make that argument i think i just think at the end of the day she should have been able to make that argument and as as your honor says that you know you're not certain that c police officers would or would not have testified in that particular manner and that was one of the arguments of the government raised in their brief that well the officers would have helped the government anyway so you didn't if that's true then the parties are in agreement that the officer should be called experiences being pulled over harassed having his property taken and then having his property given back to him and only being charged with whatever actual marijuana was in the car why wouldn't he come to believe here but that's the best the whole point your honor and that would be an argument that would be an argument that would be able to be had at trial but we weren't ever even able to make that argument and we weren't able to put those officers on the stand so your honor and so there were five arguments that were made by the government in their briefs why our arguments were invalid the first that i wanted to talk about was the waiver argument and hide the criminal activity it was due to what he viewed as essentially police harassment and this was brought up at the final pretrial and this was talked about it tried the officers coming in overwhelmingly is prejudicial to the government where our entire argument is premised on mr hamdan avoiding having to testify by it please the court my name is heidi mantric and i represent the united states and its appeal the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in limiting the trial evidence in this case the evidence that was proffered by the defendant  regarding the wisconsin troopers testimony about a traffic stop in two thousand and twelve was simply not relevant to help establish the defendant the defense that the defendant did not know that the substance  honor i agree that i don't think the testimony if it was understood and came in very clearly would have been helpful for the defense but the government has an independent obligation to ensure that the jury is not confused with collateral issues and that was the primary reason for seeking to question this the testimony would have been effectively that the testimony of law enforcement officers in wisconsin opining on the status of the law in relation to a different substance at that time and that very well could have confused the jury as to what the issues were in dispute at it in the trial regarding this substance in twenty fourteen product all of the other materials i needed to manufacture the case the finished product including acetone flavoring these down the ana leaves all those were found in these storage units and yet when he was confronted with the fact that is the key to it in his pocket he denies knowledge of the existence of the storage units and doesn't know that what's going on there which is inconsistent with the defense that he thought what he was doing was completely legal so it's  move to the last case