particular type of situation it doesn't matter whether you're talking about arrest or host arrest there is a due process violation and we rely on the counties from this court which indicates that when someone is  instruction didn't ask to strike the testimony didn't even offer any type of objection at all when the when there is no objection the government cannot then come back and say under the curate of the miss milly document they want to introduce  particular situation i believe the government's concern was that the jury would and for the f b i engage in some type of misconduct by not giving the polygraph if that was really the concern and i think that that's quite a jump but if the jury  record at one playing actually asked the defendant whether she was in court when the when the government agent the f b i agent testified so you almost took part in the improper question which is very similar to what happened in the combs case as well where  six feet tall and we're talking about witnesses but had plenty of opportunity to observe when the was a man named doc than he was the second person on the maintenance crew that evening he was inside the bank when the robbers were there mr fans five five feet testified that both brothers were colored and he was the second witness was a woman and willie garcia who observed the robbery as it was occurring who narrated it to the police on the nine one one call who saw the robbers in relation to each other in relation to possibility of being under will be prejudicial when in fact that what that seems to have and its main purpose to me well is probable that the government failed to connect up the two in terms of  a jury will equate membership in a gang with guilt of the crime charge and now there are certainly times when gang membership evidence is appropriate as far as how the supreme court  and that's particularly on the issue of bias on the issue of motive and occasionally on the issue of identification perhaps but in this case it was never even told to the jury which again was being talked about the prosecutors didn't care it benefited them because it made mr sutton look so bad at least that's the way that the record reads to me and i think that's a fair reading of the record considering but they apparently have within their ability to call  is not a rove sorry excuse me on i'm sorry it didn't a prosecutor stop that when the judge admonished them he stopped for a while he came back to it and then did stop when he stopped a second time fourteen times is telegraphing personal just bullies what the witnesses saying there's no other way to read them after the forty times and in fact it was eighteen times in this case because there were four other questions about the proceedings other than the one of the other than the trial where the oath was being thrown out because credibility was a central issue credibility is a central issue and president impeachment do so thank you very well here from the government her fifth amendment rights because the government made no substantive use of the evidence that her right to counsel it was not argued in closing argument it was never mentioned other than the four questions of the agent to clear up obligation to object well i need two responses the first is that we did not handle this and i guess the government's looking at this in the line of the fear response cases not admissibility cases i think for the curing of the bill of the doctors who apply you have to have sort of one piece of the inadmissible evidence that is attempted to be cured by another piece of evidence and i think that whether or not the question about the polygraph was inadmissible the government did not treat it as such and so i don't think the government had it and an obligation to object to that of course would have been one strategy and i think that the government could have  jacket or could have asked for an instruction i think however the prosecutors here at the did not want to call further attention to the polygraph issue and instead asked a very limited questions about why a polygraph w i don't think there was an obligation here for for counsel to  on the issue of the gang evidence if it is true that government counsel made a motion prior to trial and it was part of the government's trial now that it's intended or perhaps would call again expert w jury know about that prior state very i believe that agents are her task to find that and i can look i think that agent arthur testified that that the mere mention of a gang affiliation can be very prejudicial and it's obvious that the government in the united saying that is the government did not connect up any connection between the gang and that that's why cantor was trying to find as he did the government elected not to do that and the government did not argue that in closing instead the government argued that tagore did not want to be labeled a snitch and that's why he testified as he did not that he w think i just don't understand what you're saying now seems to me to be a little bit inconsistent with the i guess of the motion and limit and let the government represented to the court at that time they went ahead and did it and never connected is that it seems inconsistent with what you're describing right now i don't well i mean they planned to bring it it was they told the defense they were going to introduce that evidence and they did it and they didn't do what the court said they had to do in order to introduce it i think that the government actually did not intend to introduce that evidence began evidence that came out during taggers cross examination think government's trial lawyers intention was supposed to look at the record well i think in walking out the question the specific areas where the gang testimony was talked about the of these people were from grace st that wasn't their territory they had dropped off their just sell drugs but it was where my aunt was from so i think there's a dual purpose there obviously the government you know was aware of different gang memberships but i also think limited the questions are i mean there's that question and then there's a later question where the government says you told the f b i that sutton was a great street gang member and tagger says i never told them he was a great street gang member i told them he was a great street gang member and that was really the only two in the entire you know forty plus pages of cross examination those are the only two mentions of it wrong both in her direct exam and in her closing argument mentions the gang mentions gang issue mentioned she was going to again party but other than that there really is no mention of gang evidence during the course of the trial and the government did not argue it in closing they didn't argue there was a member members of the same gang or the tanker had lie every point and told a different story the first five years was the dividing line between highlighting consistencies and sending the message that the government disbelieve witness which is a no no right i think that as as your honor pointed out when when the district court judge told the government counsel to forget that and go on to something else he started the first find both questions there was no objection  whether it was in our hall as a different issue he was trying to demonstrate that ted don't have lied on so many different occasions and had lie on his instructor testimony about his plea agreement and something th