were highly prejudicial in how the inflammatory i mean there was math manufacturing alleged in the indictment is true i mean i know this this was a bit colorful you know the testimony but why more greed just the nose and united states person screen it was a conviction for manufacturing d m t the expert got on in testified not only about the out in the precursor drugs that were involved in that case but talked about the relationship to ellis to be talked about as a bizarre physiological effects on the body and that sort of thing in anderson the record held in anderson was also it was a marijuana case the expert testified about the use of marijuana cocaine and silent a lot it referred to drug street drugs seen in street c talk about marijuana causing a person going berserk  defendants but the service search will only say house where they found the precursors and i guess my point in that is that the level of proof in those cases was at least as strong as if not stronger than in this case violated the fifth minute right to due process the court in green called this sort of testimony of dubious relevance and prejudicial impact and said in that case the judge should have corrected it on his own about ammonium nitrate used in the shake and bake with i said a million metric used in this method is weapons grade and it's the same stuff that timothy mcveigh used in oklahoma city back in the ninety's this is the first witness that was presented to the jury manufacture one simple breast can kill you know it's not been a timothy mcveigh related to the shake and bake that which was not even at issue in this case can you demonstrate prejudice and view of the testimony they please the court my name is look like or not here on behalf of the united states i'm just going to focus on this this for a three prejudicial impact issue that people has any questions about any of the other issues please feel free to to ask away what i think if you look very carefully at the record where you see that's happening is the questions of the trial attorney were actually somewhat nearly tailored to try and get at the mean affection process which is very relevant in this case because the defendant was charged with being part of a conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine her role in the conspiracy was the purchase of a veteran now the average tour we hope does not know how you make me how you mean a factor of methamphetamine so they needed an expert to come in tell them about the various processes in the reason why the details of this process were porton is because she was also charged with the can the conspiracy having involved fifty grams of methamphetamine and the only evidence of her direct involvement had to do with these purchases of pseudoephedrine so you need to have an expert to come in so the jury could understand by that by purchasing this quantity of pseudoephedrine that was going to lead to a certain quantity of methamphetamine so if you look at the answer question just more nourse if you look at the questions that were actually asked by the trial usa in this case they were really designed to get out information just about the manufacturing process and a lot of the witness a little bit not to run out about him you know it i think if you look at the questioning it looks like the prosecutor was trying to sort of redirect the witness when she could but of course this is raises this is exactly why these issues should have been objected to a trial you know that was the time at which the defendant should have objected and said hey don't talk about this stuff and then the judge the prosecutor could have proceeded appropriately so the question here is given that failure to object did this result in  trial in the answer that is no because this evidence wasn't unduly prejudicial it may have been prejudicial but again the language of rule for three is undue pressure this evidence concerning the manufacturing process was certainly relevant and also the dangerousness of the manufacturing process was relevant if you look at the full facts of what happened in this conspiracy the defendant was living with lead me in a factor of math and he was doing this in a garage in the back there and then part of her claim a trial was well look you know i don't i don't really know anything about what was going on i never saw any factoring math in the fact of the process was so dangerous that he might have done it very far away from the house where they lived that certainly relevant to show why she might not have actually seen the man being manufacture wine and she might not have actually gone to the meth lab that tommy would resign parading so i think all of that is really relevant and when you you know you balance it out i don't see how this is a situation where this prejudice is is unfair or undue prejudice this is a very different situation than the court confronted in anderson in greek in those cases the test let me ask you question that it was brought up in your view brought in tennessee north carolina because several overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were conducted entirely think it's one conspiracy i may not i'm struggling to see any connection any common goal as opposed to parallel similar activity between tommy ward and charles parlier with the investigation revealed and i believe the reason why it was charged in eastern tennessee is that you had a group of folks who were together buying pseudoephedrine and you had a couple different meth cooks that were all part of the same group of people and they were all acting as one conspiracy well how do those needs are in tennessee and somewhere what's the evidence that that come that connects other than parlier buying pseudo whatever it is what's the evidence that connects charles and tommy ward what they actually do about how they're each doing respectively in their math sales i'm not sure that there's any evidence specifically in the record connecting tommy ward and charles curley or but there is evidence connecting charles parlier with jackie rutan and james trivet who were additional here in fact jackie wrote in her bed full testified that they went with the defendant to help transport pseudoephedrine to charles partner and i think the jury could reasonably infer from that that what you have here is a whole group of people with  couple you know couple different method and cooks but whole group of people who are only gauging the same process together and again the standard on on that question of whether there's been a variance from the indictment is is there you know are t only way this evidence could be viewed if it's possible to view this evidence as involving one conspiracy then i think that you have to defer the jury's verdict in this case and we would submit that given the fact that these other two coconspirators testified that they were also involved the trials probably are that they that this the jury could reasonably infer from that that this whole group was operating in a way that you had a couple different mathematics enemy coke's one was in north carolina one was in tennessee and you had a bunch of folks who were purchasing sue a bedroom to feed connecting charles activities with tom's is quite thin and i mean just just for what it's worth this is maybe fourth case literally in the last six months where i can make the same comment about course is not part of the record and it would be improper for me to i mean but if you're going to charge it is one you might want to consider to have been some more evidence and we're seeing lately to that effect i appreciate i appreciate that no i mean it's just you know it's presenting us with a question we have to think pretty hard about i think in this case and well i think in this case what you do have is you have evidence of coconspirator you have evidence of the defendant in at least other coconspirators who are all i think given that evidence a reasonable jury could infer that this was all one big conspiracy with with different meth cooks i mean there are reasons i mean the the folks who are involved in this conspiracy at the low level are purchasing pseudoephedrine there lot of times they're mainly doing it so that they can get nothing returned so you know from their perspective if you know they don't view this is just sort of hey it's a one coke operation you know if there are other folks who could help you know continue this then this process of them getting math and being able to distribute math there you know they're happy with that and i think that what you should you see is at least three coconspirators together who are both connected to tommy ward and  record the better way to analyze that would be that the out of court statement it did address both mr ward and the defendant i mean i think it's that that's clear from the context in the record it's also i would think it seems pretty clear that the statement was in fact testimonial the question is whether it was offered for the truth of the matter asserted and if you actually look at the context in which the statement was a listen did in which it was presented it wasn't present for the truth of the matter sir it was simply presented as a context of why did you start your investigation and i think also given the posture of this case even if the court were to find that that was an erroneous admission you still have to look at all of the evidence in this case to see whether it meets that the other requirements of play or whether this this error if it was an error had any effect on the verdict and i think given the i mean just a plethora of evidence against the defendant i mean you had tommy ward jackie defendant's own admission so i think when you compare look at the overwhelming evidence in this case of the defendant's guilt any potential error in the admission of that of that statement even assuming it was offered for the truth of the matter asserted would be a harmless error in this cases involved testimony where the testimony is about the effect of the drug and the danger is that the drug post to society this is different that the testimony here was not focused on trying to say you know marijuana is a bad thing and people use marijuana evil people this testimony was about how do you mean a factual math in this testimony was relevant unlike testimony about the evils of drugs which is not really relevant in a prosecution for drug conspiracy the testimony about how you mean a factor meth is relevant  prosecution for meth conspiracy when the theory is that this person was providing pseudoephedrine to help in the manufacturing process the journey's understand how does pseudoephedrine factor into this process how much meth can be produced from pseudoephedrine as a out the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt was certainly not this is not the kind of situation where the defendant didn't receive a fair trial or and where this court should not have confidence in the in the jury's verdict and lester any other questions about this issue or any of the other issues in the case all rests in our brains all right thank you very much prosecutor says what's the harm you might think what's the harm of tommy words manufacturing methamphetamine he's giving it to use if he's not selling it on the street we're not you know entrapping of the people that are the dangers associated with methamphetamine what you heard take to better some talk about it while they all get suited up when they go a meth lab because of the chemicals because of the spark the chance of a fire break out because meth it self is a bad drug she