the morning morning one of the main issues in this case is whether the district court district court erred by denying my motion for a severance and then admitting such a large volume of highly prejudicial and unduly prejudicial uncharged crimes my client was not involved in the vast majority of these on charge crimes there were shootings there were shootings at at people there were shootings at rival drug dealers they were shooting instead relatives there were shootings at cars there were shootings at residences placing guns under cars my client had nothing to do with the vast majority of that part of the government's proof to show the existence of the conspiracy and then to show that the defendant in question joined the conspiracy yes but if there's a certain body of evidence that provides that background and that demonstrates that motive that part would commend you wouldn't go all the way back to two thousand through two thousand and three six years up to six years prior to my client's involvement you saying you raised your real argument and is that it was too much is too much so they could have put in some amount of direct evidence as by way of background of the conspiracy but this was way too much yes and that i specifically argued in the district court i argued that they already have the slap coming and now my client was in jail when the slap occurred that's when one person slapped let you get a slap even if i understood why that came in because that was the whole motive leading into the murder but the slap occurred in two thousand and seven while my client was in jail why are we going back to two thousand and two two thousand and three and bringing in shootings at bentley's treating it gz shootings  set the tone for the entire trial i had a trial case would have been set anyway with the relevant with the evidence that you do you concede would have been allowed but we had we had a month long trial and about two weeks of it was and guns the government say they say in their brief that my client was caught red handed neither the jeep where guns a gun and drugs were recovered nor the bayside residence where a gun and drugs were cooperate with us funny yes yes the same the same cooperators and they too testified that ronald anderson wasn't just there that day on april twenty eighth two thousand and ten when the gun and drugs  recovered but instead had been involved in some type of you know there was a direct ties so there was a person who was taken off and then provides the asians with specific information about the jeep and they can tie that directly to your  partially because brian jeans did give a statement and there was conflicting statements by the t s a officers by the special agents as to what he had said we introduced at the suppression hearing  make before what the witness told the police when they went and and did the search of the jeep was that there was another person present who may have observed the transit what occurred from a starbucks sho and he was in another jeep the witness didn't say that my client was involved that he was a participant in the transaction once the suppression hearing came along that the statement that was attributed to that cooperate or was bee occurred so that the testimony from the cooperators was as judge mcmahon said there were some of the worst cooperators she had ever seen they  they had tampered with witnesses they had paid twenty five thousand dollars to get a false affidavit to get acquitted of a murder they admitted to telling lies during the proffers during the case they stole money plainclothes individuals who they he who does not know are police officers are coming in through the front door with a battering ram and i guess the question is with all this other evidence why should review even if through seven i'd like to start by addressing the point on which mr you know focus his argument which is the other acts of violence as judge walker's initial question indicated as judge with man correctly found and this is that special and next page sixty the history of violence between these warring groups was quote the only evidence that would help the jury understand the enmity these warring factions had why fletcher would assault roseman son why roseman would want fletcher dead and what johnson would be willing to see the deed done understood defense counsel brief at pages sixteen to seventeen mr you know just now in his argument to concede that at least some of these acts of violence were relevant evidence direct evidence of the conspiracy and the argument was censured that it was cumulative it was too much at some point we crossed the line and i did note initially that where to draw that line in terms of what amount of have a something that's in trust to the district court in the first instance interviewed for abuse of discretion and i think that judge macmahon properly exercised her discretion here on no to a few things that she did which demonstrate carefully consider this the first is that she in fact precluded several acts of violence which the government sought to introduce but which judge man found had a less clear connection to the feud between the two warring groups and those decision on that special  specific point that johnson unlike in person was charged in the murder conspiracy and so these acts of violence were in independently admissible against johnson even had he gone to trial himself as judge chin pointed out all of this evidence was specifically directed at the murder counts and the jury was so instructed that it was because certain only with respect to the murder counts and the jury split verdict not of not convicting mr johnson on the murder counts showed that they knew how investigation should have gone further to cover the other jurors as well you know were to somehow get got to go to a new trial on the on the drug judge i think second circuit case law is clear first of all juror number twelve and for that reason when it became clear that she was not in fact sanford with there was no reason to conduct a fishing expedition as you mentioned finally i'll just note that is in response to the harmlessness argument mr you know pointed out that a codefendant ron anderson was convicted of the narcotics counts he was tried by himself he was a very significant difference between ron anderson and with my politician or he was acquitted and that is this although both mr johnson and mr anderson also note that the government repeatedly in its own summations reminded the jury that arguments are not evidence they did that to just two to twenty three seventy one twenty three forty eight twenty three sixty what the government was doing was i think  making a very fair reply in pointing out the tension between two countervailing defense arguments on one hand you can't consider this payment of cocaine as evidence of murderous intent because these guys are moving so much cocaine that is one of the milk and on the other hand johnson is not guilty of the cocaine charges there's a tension between those arguments and the government is intitled to point out the tension between defense argument why and even if it were improper in some respects your honor it's an isolated statement over the course as a summation that was in the reply summation this missions were many hours it was a five week trial the evans was very strong that iceland statement would not be grounds for your point is that at least part of the defense counsel and for that reason courts aren't going to light lightly infer the most dangerous meaning from every comments that is made in a prosecutor's rebuttal furthermore judge mcmahon who heard the summations live in person and heard the tone in the inflection and all the context that goes with it said in response to mr ailes point that the government had made an improper argument that she heard no such thing in any event she instructed the jury both before and after mentions that the arguments counsel are not evidence so for that reason you do not think that that statement was improper and even if it were that i said the statement would be grounds for a new trial are just like to make a few points following up on the argument that i made previously that there the judge could have picked a certain number of acts to come in to provide the context if you look at page fourteen of my brief i list there a percent was excluded and i think if there ever were case look at it might be read to look at the quantity of on charged just two other points we never did get a breakdown but there was eleven to one or ten to one were just i think the government's inferring that it was eleven to one because there was a note that said one juror won't deliberate and just with respect to the statement in the closing argument maybe it's heat of the argument but when you put the other attorneys closing argument on the board there's some premeditation in that that's not just an off the cuff statement during closing argument so it's