cocaine because the evidence was simply insufficient to establish that mr short knew there were narcotics in the suitcase he brought from trinidad to the united states the only direct evidence of his knowledge of narcotics was an agent testimony a trial about how the agent asked mr schorr after he was stopped at the airport if he knew what type of drugs he was under arrest for and he quote responded cocaine but mr short made that statement only after watching an officer in close quarters find the cocaine hidden field in a suitcase and pull out long thin packages of it the officer told a colleague he found a white powdery substance on the officer told mr short that he was under arrest for narcotics before mr short made any statement and in fact mr short explained to the agent in a recording that the jury did not get to hear because of an erroneous evidentiary ruling that all turned to a moment that mr short had checked the suitcase and found it clean and had learned about the drugs only from the agent has cocaine in one's pocket or in one suitcase is itself evidence of awareness that one has a drug why is that not the case yes your honor let me say a few words about that and certainly the government suggests in its brief that the exclusive possession of what the government calls a drug laden suitcase alone can jeff rise to an inference of knowledge as the court question suggests but that's not what this court cases say in fact they say that it's a hugely fact depends inquiry where you have to look at all of the facts to see if the defendant is truly a trusted courier who can be charged with knowledge of what's in a bag or a package or a car or if the defendant is a mere pa someone who does not have knowledge and in the cases that this court has decided and you have cases in our brief and there are cases on both sides but in the cases the records where this court has a firm convictions and found evidence of fish and have far more circumstantial evidence pointing at a defendant's knowledge then you have here in anderson for example this court found the evidence sufficient where the defendant claims not to know about drugs in a bag that he was poised to receive there yes but she was made but do you have cases where the court found the evidence insufficient were legally insufficient when the defendant had cocaine in his bag that he was doing through customs your honor say that the evidence was sufficient to the case is that there's a lot more evidence that doesn't really told us very much of course your honor the closest analogy is this court decision in us the torah and in that case the defendant  received a package that was filled with drugs it was addressed to him there were communications between him and the senders of the package before it got sent he acted suspiciously at the time he received the package there was a fair amount of suspicious behavior at the time but the and this court said in its opinion that there's certainly enough evidence to show that the defendant knew there was something illicit in the achatz the court said there was not enough to prove that that the cendant knew there were drugs the septic was in the package and the court's ruling was based in part on the fact that in that case in the court wrote this that there were no cooperating witnesses who testified in that case about a drug organization the drugs were well concealed and in the package like they were well concealed but that's a short but that is a case where the but that's a case where the where the packet was not brought in by the defendant it was sent to him by somebody from someplace else this is a case where the defendant brought the suitcase himself from outside the country and into the country i think the defendant transportation of the package here and the defendant play longer period of time doesn't give rise to a greater inference of knowledge particularly where the evidence in torres suggestive of illicit activity was more extensive than in this case and the things that this here and the government in that case like here said that you know someone like torres would have been entrusted with that you know if you didn't know what was in the package the text messages there you know the suspicious behavior was far more extensive here where at worst mr short simply acted nervous at the time he got popped by the kitchen and on the whole i think the evidence of the circumstances here have much less circumstantial evidence than even this court found insufficient in the torres case and to compare that to anderson again where the court found sufficient evidence anderson had much more but even that resulted in a divided opinion with one member of this court to sensing and saying that that evidence which was more extensive than ours here was insufficient to establish the defendant's knowledge and i'm happy to answer additional questions from the court but i want to turn for a precluding mr short from introducing the additional exculpatory statements he made to agents at the time of his so called admission the admitted statement alone acknowledging that he was under arrest for cocaine was incomplete and misleading and not harmless in addition to responding to cocaine when he was asked if he knew what type of drugs he was transporting mr short also said he checked the bag to see that it was clean and st realized there were drugs in there when he learned it from the agent the statements were part and parcel of the admitted statement the admitted statement has the agent asking him if he knows what type of drug he's arrested for the natural next question is how do you know that and the district court precluded the answer to that natural next question from coming into evidence you haven't seen it and you can't say it's highly probable that that's not affect the verdict and finally the district court committed a manifest our by admitting expert testimony of an investigator fernandez over a defense objection where that expert covered numerous things well within the understanding of an average juror like how couriers use boats and planes and phones and text and what that the expert prejudicially suggested that mr short was part of a large scale trafficking operation where there was a complete absence of evidence of anything like that here but expert improperly said drugs don't need to be tested for d n a when you have someone in custody defending the government investigatory methods in a way that the government and its brief doesn't even defend and worst of all said that it's highly unlikely for a courier to be blind and he's never seen that in his career he never seen a courier not know about the drugs he's bringing in of course this court in anderson influence the jury and i'm happy to take any questions which you've characterized the evidence about your client saying that the suitcase contained cocaine it seems to me you're asking us to do that evidence in the light most favorable to your client but we are obliged to view it in the light most favorable to the jury verdict which would mean that we would have to assume that the jury did not credit the account of seeing the opening of the drugs  the government break that was the testimony of a government agent for those circumstances are not in dispute and i'm sorry but i was under the impression that the government's witnesses were that that happened that was not within the eyesight cocaine removed from the but they were labeled the cocaine theory you're arguing that he did not realize that this was cocaine because the government is relying on the fact that he's asked what's in there and he says cocaine so i just need to be sure i understand you when you say it's undisputed what is undisputed about his knowledge of cocaine from the agent's  who who says that what it is is cocaine your honor in the context of what happened what i believe is undisputed is that he sees the packages removed from the suitcase he hears the officer say he found a white powdery substance and then he hears the officer tell him he's under arrest for narcotics at a minimum then there's the additional statement he makes that he learned about it that it was cocaine from the officers and that he heard them talking about  which is something no agent they didn't say against that backdrop there is a complete absence of evidence of anything that would give rise to knowledge of mr short that there is cocaine in the bag prior to that moment he's arrested and although inferences need to be drawn in the right light most favorable to the government they also need to be reasonable and the only reasonable inference here is that mr short watched what was happening with the agents and when he was asked what type of drugs are you under the rug arrest for he gave the sensible response cocaine there is no basis to say he knew cocaine that it was cocaine at some point prior to watching all of this with the agent none of the government other evidence speaks to that and so while you know you have to draw the inference in the light most favorable to the government the only reasonable inference here the only support of the inference the inference that supported by what happened with the agent by mr short other statements that are recorded and in the record here the only supported inference is that he learned about it from the agents and that's all that that statement stands for right thank you for clarifying your position wanted i have additional question which is just following on what you were just saying why isn't the combination of circumstances the combination of his having the the these packets concealed in his suitcase and the suspicious behavior includes starting with the fact that his companion apparently refused to roll a bag herself and he had to take it and then when he was stopped at the at customs with a problem with the suitcase is his companion any pretended they didn't know each other and they didn't even look in each other's that he was carrying cocaine in his suitcase yes just like in torres which featured similar suspicious behavior at the time when law enforcement was observing the defendant with the package this court said the evidence is sufficient for three i knew he was involved in something i let that and at the time that mr short stop i mean of course nervous thought by law enforcement but in the light most favorable to the government yes there is sufficient evidence that at that point he knows there's possibly something illicit there's a complete absence of evidence that he knows he is involved with drugs and the fact that he says cocaine in response to questioning at the point when he did after witnessing what he witnessed doesn't take that evidence across the line from insufficient to professional the cases where this court has a firm containing much more extensive record than pres here is at least equally consistent the record here with someone transporting up a suitcase into the country not knowing you know what it contains and learning about the drug only from  defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt moreover the district court did not abuse of discretion in who the evidence regarding the defendant's fault the sculptor or a statement because of the statements of the defendant now claims should have been admitted do not explain or complete the statement admitted by the government and finally the district court did not commit reversible error when it did miss it expert testimony regarding the role of a courier in a drug trafficking organization to the extent that the defendant now challenges any statements by the expert regarding a so called blind courier he is waive the challenge by listening inferences to be drawn for that of the jury hearing the defendant claims that various pieces of evidence emitted at the trial can be viewed in the light that supports either guilt or innocence and then such a case where much of the evidence circumstantial this court to reverse the conviction defend it mischaracterizes and misapplied the relevant standard that this court has repeatedly held after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government it will only reverse the jury's determination if the evidence is nonexistent or so meager that no reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt here there was indeed sufficient evidence and the amount and type was consistent contrary to what counsel says with the type that this court has previously found to be sufficient in similar cas and everything inside of it was his when he was in costume the defendant there appeared nervous and was unable to answer basic question this court found that the combination of circumstances the nervousness the false statement viciousness of the defendant were sufficient to support an inference that the defendant knew that there were drugs and hidden compartments here the facts are very similar except there's even more evidence the defendant had sole possession of his case and that distinguishes this case from torahs where there are a variety of individuals involved  really with no prospect of the defendant ever having sole possession also here the defendant told the customs agent when he stopped that the bag and everything inside with his only to change his story later and say that he was bringing the bag for a friend defendant also lied to the customs agent when he said that he was travelling along the evidence clearly established that the defendant had flown to the united states with his girlfriend they sat next to each other on the plane they walked through the airport together they went to bed disclaim together and it was only once he was intercepted by one force meant that he pretended he was no longer with someone else there's also additional behavior by the defendant that the from which the jury could have concluded that he had knowledge of what was in the suitcase his girlfriend as the court correctly pointed out walked right past him as he was having a search she didn't wave at him he didn't wave at her and said they pretended that they didn't know each other a reasonable fact finder could have determined based on the evidence that the defendant knew th seed officer was close to finding the cocaine his bag and that he didn't want to get his garden involved relatedly there is evidence at trial of the defense interactions with his girlfriend the airport from which jury could have found out and that is the fact that when he was picking his bag off that his claim his girlfriend initially grabbed his bag you know by him on the video he gestures towards her and they switch back he goes out of his way to maintain possession of the bag sole custody is the fact that this court has repeatedly looked at when considering whether or not it's proper to draw an inference of knowledge and this defendant maintains the and went above and beyond to do so as the evidence showed trial there was also evidence that it's not in been discussed yet the defendant's communication with the individual for him he was carrying a bag those communications are also evidence of guilt because they were inconsistent with the supposed relationship the defendant had with this individual had really communicated about bringing a little something back to him that this is all circumstantial evidence and the defendant knowledge and guilty mind this court is repeatedly how the circumstantial evidence is sufficient there is no requirement of direct evidence although here there was that there was direct evidence there is the defendant meant that there was cocaine in the bag but even with out that the government's position is that there was sufficient evidence for the court for the jury to conclude that the defendant was guilty additionally there was the defendant's own testimony which the jury appropriately considered in reaching its verdict as it was entitled to do the jury here could have easily concluded that the defendant who claimed to have checked his bag thoroughly and didn't notice that there differs on the interior of the bag was not being truthful the jury could have viewed that testimony and considered that the inconsistent and impossible nature of the testimony pointed to a skill i want to turn to address counsel's argument that statement of cocaine here the defendant is now arguing that the admission was just confirmation of what you already heard from the officers that arrested them in terms of interpretation that admission  the district court in terms of interpreting that admission should be in the context of statements that were that were made at the time of the defendant's post arrest statement here counsel's alleging that  statement were were not to be admitted the defense trying to create an ambiguity that doesn't this is the defendant's argument at trial it was not what he said and post arrest statement in fact in post arrest statement he was asked by the agent whether or not anyone ever said that there was cocaine or he was in the pack down room any specific lee said no and he shook his head and that was evidence that the government actually admitted in its rebuttal case because it was directly contrary to what the defendant had previously s moving on to the senate's rd argument the admission of drug trafficking and testimony by drug trafficking expert was ruling that was made within the court distraction it was it was litigated in advance trial in the courts that the parameters which the government followed here expert did testify about drug trafficking organization and that testimony was appropriate because  additionally the court permitted testimony from the expert regarding the value of the drug and filling in testifying about how drugs are valued and sold if it was it was it was necessary for the expert to discuss try trafficking organization this testimony unable to jurors to assess whether or not the dependence practices were consistent or inconsistent with drug traffickers and drug trafficking expert did not testify on direct about the defendant knowledge or ever directly about the defendant's knowledge instead to rat on cross examination he was asked by defense counsel but the concept of a blind courier which he in fact admitted did exist that that testimony was elicited repeatedly  in question by defense counsel which came back to more than once and it was defense counsel that actually used the term blind courier so to be sent that that that the defendant now complains this testimony was prejudicial  specked of your argument it's my impression when you say that it was the defendant who elicited the agent's testimony that it would be highly unusual to send drugs in the possession of someone who didn't know he was carrying the drugs i'm not at all sure that that's a fair characterization it seemed to me that the agent went far beyond the scope of the question and kind of like it was some kind of like beyond the scope of the question that it would be highly unusual for a drug organization to use to use one i don't see why that was appropriate testimony i think it i have since grave doubts as to whether that would be appropriate if it had been the listed by the government and i don't really see that it was solicited by the defendant since the since the agent went far beyond the question that he was asked he wasn't  know i would agree that had been elected by the government would not have been proper and why is that different why is it different if the agent then lay back and went far beyond the scope of the question that he was asked defense counsel asked was proper and he said highly unlikely and then she continued to ask additional questions about it and i would submit that counsel did this in its own judgment as a strategy a trial to try and fit the defendant within the category of people that don't know and so to the extent that she continued to revisit the issue and raise the issue to try to establish to the experts of the defendant was in the category of people that don't know the category of people that you know the government admitted that that was a strategy that was employed by spence counsel and after yes but after after the agent has gone beyond the scope of the question and introduced the notion of it would be highly unusual then the damage has been done and counsel has to cope with it in whatever way coun people could be used to transport drugs and not even know it and he answered i know that it exists yes and so i think in the broader context the gore continued to engage and she actually got answers that were exactly what she wanted yet in fact  exist and so again you are the government would submit that was a judgment that was made for strategy and that the government did not elicit that on direct examination in at bottom at the very end this expert never said anything about this defendant this expert was clear about what it had reviewed and dance of trial and never came to an opinion as to whether this defendant you and so so here although although they they are questions that the government should not yes please perhaps because i was having a little trouble understanding you miss terrell i would like you just to respond to mr jacobs point that the evidence of the events occurring before the defended statement that the the what he was carrying was cocaine would only admit an inference that he learned that at the time of the the government do you want to tell us tell me why the why the government does not accept that argument yes your honor i think i think that that it though those are facts that were really proper for the jury to come to  their own conclusion as to what they could infer what would have what would have allowed them to reject that conclusion because counsel suggesting that the only reasonable inference was that he learned the testimony and the agent's testimony but also the video evidence that was admitted during the trial show that the defendant was standing in front of his bag when the clothes were removed and when it was searched and then the agent walked away through different area to x ray the bag and then brought the bag back and there were officers standing around and the defendant in that had all the video correct your honor but there's no audio d for the video and right so it's bait you know what what said during those exchanges is based on testimony the c b p officer testified that either in that area that i was just describing in custom and also in the path down room that he never ever used the word cocaine that he told the defendant ultimately that he was under arrest for narcotics but that no one ever used the word cocaine similarly the defendant testified that somebody said the word cokie but essentially admitted that that was never something that he said  arrest statement as your honor pointed out earlier when the packages were removed from the suitcase the evidence showed that packages were wrapped in like a black material and so it wasn't as if they were translucent bags filled with white powder  and so here the fact that the defendant knew that it was cocaine when he your said that he had been under arrest for cocaine when no one had told him that your honor is that the fact is that the jury the only way he knew that was because he knew what was in the suitcase and the fact that he said cocaine as opposed to any other narcotic or any other white stuff no i understand what you're saying thank you thank you that's all i have judge wasn't that wasn't the word and so you know the government would submit and did to the jury that you don't he didn't say oh if i said cocaine not cocaine you know that in effect that that evidence to rebut the defendant's testimony about the  and i st realized there was drugs in the suitcase after when they come and say i'm under arrest the drug in the suitcase he clearly says and it's consistent with what happened that he realizes about the drugs in the suitcase isn't the poster us statements contrary to what ms ferraro earlier on the issue of the expert in this trial acknowledges that it would have been improper if the government had admit had elicited the testimony and yet despite that acknowledgement repeatedly in summation misfile emphasized the testimony on appendix one thousand and five in the main summation she tells the jury like a special investigator hernandez told you on cro recall special investigator hernandez's testimony about the situations where he didn't believe it was possible that there would be an unknowing courier the government relied heavily on this is mrs lee improper testimony and of course i agree with your honor's assessment that the defense counsel's question did not fairly call for this is simply asked for a simple acknowledgement that it's possible a courier would not know they're transporting drugs and the agent went far beyond this thing it's highly unlikely and then repeatedly went back to that testimony in the back and forth the funds council and then finally ms ferraro in searching for a case on the th questions  t supports the idea that the evidence is sufficient here relies on this court decision in fagan f a g a and which she also discusses in our brief in which we discussed in our reply brief that the non presidential summary order and it roundly distinguishable we addressed in our brief but in that case the defendant packed the back him self he couldn't say where we were going he couldn't give contact information for the people he was thing as the agent for about three moves the drugs he turned around because he doesn't want to watch it's totally different and it's not a binding precedent anyway in the way that torres and the entire line of cases that torres follows is and that we've said in our brief and i'll just repeat again that the government does not