percipient witness his summary of the court's was not admissible even though i explained i was not asking about the events in the report and you are seventeen i then asked whether or not to get that information and discovery or did you wait  till trial excuse me or did you try to get that information during discovery or did you wait until trial i tried to get all the information i could about that case prior to trial and i filed a discovery motion to obtain all the relevant  and did you not figure out who the other people were that he had been talking to and who had been percipient with this is to this event i just received the information that was disclosed to me by the government whether or not other information was held back i do not know i do know that there were video cameras that were used in this case even marriner test of the problem i have as you know i mean we're very aware of the case that you're trying to hang your hat on here and i don't fault you for that at all it's just that we can't find anybody who works as a witness who saw him climb over to prove that he was in continuous surveillance well into mariner testified that border patrol uses video cameras and  prosecution has to show that he was not under surveillance yes you know and in this case we do not know where he can read obtain his information from he made a sworn in the shorts and from the grand jury which the at this point in time we don't know where agent read them changes information and even though i tried to establish that at trial i was unable to do so there was certainly quite a bit of evidence that mr garcia sanchez was under surveillance when he entered into the united states the critical issue though was not whether or not he was under surveillance once he entered in the united states the critical issue was whether or our ten year honor at approximately eleven o'clock that evening border patrol agents observed a group of three people enter the united states by climbing over france from mexico then running north into with the other that was a in terms of whether the grand jury testimony should have been admitted and that's a classic case of an abuse of discretion standard well the district court phrased this ruling in terms of never done for a long term and that's what you appeal sedition as to whether or not to him in evidence his interpreter is reviewed for abuse of discretion and i know what you're getting at you're saying but the district court didn't understand the underlying legal question that's correct the two states that there is no guarantee of trustworthiness required for the mission therefore even we do not have to have personal knowledge for his statement to be admissible and the government misconstrues my argument i'm not answer but the portion of the record you sorry says that reid said border agents observed a group of three people come climbing over a fence but then if you go on a second agent went through that area and followed the footprints that led from the general of the city fall of the footprints north and came across three people that seems to indicate that they were lost from sight of the federal agents at some point  that this was an admission of a party opponent now for the first time on appeal in this argument and nominees for if he sang the real problem as i was not allowed to probe the basis for reid's knowledge as to what he based his mistake is mistaken  your view of the matter that it was clear what the basis for his report was at any rate it seems to me the argument the government wants to make in this case is that the court should not be let into discussing or or getting  jumping over the fence of cross examination would have would have been as follows agent read where'd you get that information from i based it on the cost of the report is that information across report no it isn't how can you explain that i was just mistaken i was slo there was other evidence that this defendant was free from official restraint because he was out of sight for eight minutes after it crossed over the border while they were looking for him so even if the jury the credit at this mistake by read the first letter somebody had seen him crossing over the are the questions not we'll hear from the other side you've heard it clearly the government says adamic any difference because if you get to the bottom line and you look under the covers you'll find there's nothing there your response the government is a evidence into the record that was not present at the trial we have no proof whatsoever in this range as presented no proof that agent reads the basis of race reads knowledge came from the report written by even a cost that we had nothing t it could have come from the camera operators he could have spoken to the camera operators who even mariners that assisted him in locating this regards used inches it could have come from other agents who were in the city it could have come from other reports that i did not have based on your testimony on direct is it fair to say based on centuries location of the information received about his location you assume he came over by climbing the fence that's correct and is that why you wrote on that report that's correct that's not good enough over the international boundary fence and run north on to what field was based upon each and house this report we have nothing that shows live as you identify who these so called camera operators are that might have said this no i was to tell this court that the camera operator you said it could have come from the camera that's correct but how do we know that you didn't even interview that you talk about something that's not in the record well that the government is mentioning that reads the so