yell and most of the statements made on the tape about that so called so called conspiracy that conspiracy as defined by the government is so broad that it would include that the people are i gather now you haven't put in your briefs or at least i haven't picked up entirely on the content of all of these conversations by the people who are ostensibly coconspirators but as  ike and when the transaction comes to pass your kind shows up with the goods is that right that's partially right well there are some conversations about the transaction that my client was involved in you are also a large number of conversations about about how you know the actions that my client had nothing to do it all within the scope of the grandiose amounts of goods that were going to be delivered what are we talking about two hundred kilograms or something that was referenced to two hundred kilograms and the number of these transactions that actually occurred were still within the scope or within at least the numerical scope conversations to make sure that we're going to say that he's part of this conspiracy the first race that let's make sure that this transaction comes down is somehow connected with this conversation somehow connected to the transaction that mr card you what defendant i think is an act what's inaccurate about defense argument is that the sixty four kilograms were part of the two hundred kilogram cocaine deal that ninety eight or ninety nine percent of all the admitted conversations were regarding there was a deal between martinez and pereiras who were in mexico to supply the informant with two hundred kilograms that was going to be done piecemeal one of the individuals who was going to supply him with a portion of that cocaine was a man at the time only leaves that meeting after they discussed getting sixty four kilograms next day and goes and is observed meeting with an unknown individual in the defendant's van march twenty sixth march twenty seventh again it's in retail with conversations in the van that were tape recorder i would like to bring that to the court's attention see i was wearing a tape what happened however is the tape was not the best quality and the defendant made a motion to exclude the tape because defendant argued it was more in it was more inaudible than it was awful so it's not unusual at all for poor quality that's correct on it because when you're wearing a wire as your body moves you know it makes sound they can overwhelm the sound of voices or as you get further away from the wrist receiving end of the wire it becomes difficult and the government thought to have these tapes admitted because it was important corroborating evidence in those tapes and i think it's on the record in terms of the government's papers for instance where the informant is in the van saying i see thirty four you know that corroborates obviously his testimony trial that he saw thirty four he was grams of cocaine in the in the men so there is important cooperation now again ninety eight or ninety nine percent of all the innocent excuse me the tape here the tape recordings weren't the best quality they ended up being excluded so again it was important to have more cooperation and perhaps the most damaging part and the hardest part for the government overcome was that the van was stopped by law enforcement but because the individual king made a mistake and let the van go and let the cocaine go so there wasn't the seizure at the end of the day to show what the informant was saying was correct so what the government needed to do was established through a long series of very clear phone calls the process by which the defendant was showing up on march twenty seventh in order to deliver sixty four of the two hundred kilograms of cocaine that martinez and fred friends had promised to the informant and that was why it was  it go because at that point he believed it was becoming a detention and he didn't have any authority so he can search the van and he let the van go so and so in this case the coconspirator statements were correctly admitted defense sites  i believe a couple of cases to follow sara specifically for the proposition that you can't have a coconspirator a conspiracy between expand and and an informant only and that's correct but that's not the law the so there was a much broader conspiracy than just a single one on one conspiracy now anything that this informant said on these tapes was heard by the jury as under a theory that the government advances that that's part of the whole conversation that's correction are now i have to acknowledge that i have not studied these tapes and i takes or take the transcript is place of the delivery where the defendant showed up with the goods is is a place that is identified in the tapes i'm not sure if it's identified in the tape or through the cia's testimony because i believe the last discussion regarding the location was made in person in a tape recorded meeting as opposed to over the telephone i would have to go back and look at the record to ensure that you are well on how how then do he is doing something personal and through whatever is described in the paper well you have the tapes of he will even if it's not the exact location and maybe i took your question to marilyn the exact location i don't believe was discussed in the tapes the fact that they would meet at the date and time that they met the individuals involved that was discussed on tape i think i just took your question a little too narrow right well oh so you say the time and the day yesterday and it was then moved to a later time that same day and the individuals and the other important part i mean another thread taking the defendant back into the conspiracy is after a meeting with  the informant kiwis and enrique beo where they discuss and there's a tape in the talking about the sixty four kilograms of cocaine that they're going to do it the next day they go talks about how he still needs to find a car for the delivery he then leave and is followed to a meeting with defendants van and i say that because they were unable to identify who was inside the van but he meets with the exact thing and that is use the following day to transport the cocaine to the meeting in addition when they're actually inside the van the informant is told by the defendant that he already has permission to give the cocaine to the informant which  informant took as a reference to the fact that the people in mexico martinez and press had authorized him to receive the kick to be able to have the cocaine released to him well if all the jury heard was the tapes all they heard was the tapes and then they heard the evidence of this delivery and who was there right for us would be evidence on the tape be sufficiently refer other meetings to she was also able to provide testimony regarding to what she heard the coconspirators is describing on those meetings ok and any of the things that the that counsel is pointing out here about having overdone the extent of the tapes about irrelevant or collateral or on the side transactions they're all part of some conversation that dealt with this conspiracy that you're talking about us know they are there all and if you you know i may just have a moment to describe what i believe counsel is referring to at some point kiwi's as often happens among criminals decides to cheat his bosses so what he wants the informant to do is to look at the cocaine that's being brought by the defendant he asked him to reject that cocaine and that he will supply him with higher quality cocaine he can get him fifty k grams of better quality cocaine and he'll do that in the near future ok so that i believe is the reference my time has run out if there