a little bit more than eighteen years as a district judge characterize the government's brady and related misconduct is among the two worst instances of that sort that he had ever seen in his career as a district judge in his own words and disappears a eight hundred forty seven these were really bad brady violations and in the companion case that this court decided recently trial motion for mistrial so the central disagreement that the government and i currently have in this all my partner and i currently have is whether garrisons characterizing  holding even if it doesn't preclude your argument because it's slightly different than the co defendants argument was that the point if you're a son was that the curative instruction was sufficient to cure the prejudice that would otherwise potentially have occurred so why doesn't that ruling mean that your argument or i think that our theory is slightly different in that we are kind of pursuing a hybrid of theory that the fraud in the court plus the related gig misconduct associated with it not not adequately disclosing it months in advance of does that preclude even if it's not preclude yes my point is that it has contain a holding about prejudice in the absence of prejudice and because of the curative instruction and even if the argument that you're making a slightly different it seems to me that that's if not the law of the case it's the law of the circuit gets put in other ways what wriggle room do we have to roll in your favor after gary i think there is a slight opening argue that the error was harmless because of the robust opportunity to cross examine skin santiago he essentially determined however that there was sufficient evidence independent of actually all for the united states we take the latest closure of brady material extremely seriously and i'm here to represent the government because we take it seriously however the district court in this case had ample opportunity to consider the effect of those late disclosures in the context of this trial and ruled appropriately that it was adequate to provide a curative instruction partly a instruction to the jury both in the middle of his last his testimony and at the end of t this court has already analyzed these claims in the context of garrison and even if it's not entirely preclude certainly garrisons analysis does have weight here both with respect to the analysis of prejudice and i would submit to the analysis of more broadly whether the district court abused its discretion in this case and the government's position is that the court did not the distinction that has been drawn by defendant now with respect to rule thirty three i submit is to narrow it garrison also raise a whether the district court abused its discretion in selecting a remedy in the context in which that is before the jury the court doesn't need to do the cause analysis of what hypothetically would have been a given effect of suppressed evidence on the jury because of course the evidence was before the jury and so there's not what that the standard is the defendant is relying on is the materiality standard we're not contesting that this should have been disclosed but the question now is whether or not just record of use it discretion in its ruling that they could be cured in the context of this trial as before the jury and so for that reason i would submit that that is the court that not these its discretion in this case if the court has no further questions all transition to the issue i don't believe so wish in the context of defendant's statements to officers there is simply one was not a record to support an evidentiary hearing that defendant was given an opportunity to create a material issue of fact court invited her to create to get on the stand to create a material issue of fact but she did not in her own paper ship a lot upon the the recording of the interview which was before the court and as before this court she relied upon officers declaration to support suppression of her statements moreover in this case there's obviously no causal connection between anything that agent tran said to the defendant and anything that defendant actually said the defendant said the same repeated the same lies both before and after the july of the believe july eleventh interview probably july eighteenth interview when she was interviewed when the clinic was searched in september she said that nothing that the agents did in the course of the at home interview coerced anything at all defendant acted voluntarily and made the statements that she made and if the court has no further questions the government with them i think we don't thank you case but i explaining what she thought her role was at this institution so how would she prejudice my that is arguably incriminating around her in the sense that the government claimed that she had lied about her rol the clinic that she was merely a volunteer that she was merely transcribing doctors notations of as opposed to performing her own independent medical judgments based on her experience it wasn't that her theory of their defense it was a theory of defense that she was merely an interpreter at the clinic and was was not engaged in the just started you just submitted and we appreciate the helpful arguments from both coun