but i would call it to call court's attention to the first gap in the chain that get concerns a period of time between when agent should the undercover agent bag and from that point on i'm already in the present there are other problems with the chain of custody and after man met guy but today i'm focusing on that first gag which is that ten to fifteen minute period when the were police officers not to execute a war i'm someone who they're attempting to arrest for a crime that's committed in their presence the reasonable is to use is to allow wrong in trying to establish a frame of argument to portray her client as a drug addict who's got outstanding warrants and isn't got a prior conviction for possessing drugs substances and the other jury doesn't know those things which of those two juries is really more likely to find you guilty which is a defense attorney i don't think you want the jury to know that information if you want the jury to think this is possession of a controlled substance he was not delivering which is now only a drug charge against the trend in that trial so those are two factors i think they're perhaps with him to defense counsel's strategy when he's going into to know that all that could have been kept out part of it was part of my actual argument is that it was part of the defense counsel strategy to get to have him because that does make jury that he has a prior conviction in this case showing that he had a drug conviction girlies to making him a logical target for democrats narcotics quite frankly i haven't seen anything the undercover agent you know that unless it's a narcotic transaction i don't think they're going to believe they're there for a bible study program so you know how else would do them in this trial attorney  that that in fact you know i brought those drugs and so that eliminates the entire first part of the defense argument if he goes with the entrapment so he goes with the idea is you  point that ben's counsel brought out there as possibly you know quite frankly that the chain of evidence is going to be his best possibility for a weakling he doesn't know as you said going in what's going to be proven up and what gaps and certainly he tried his best to take advantage of every possible gap that he could try and point out i think it was very effective in that way in trying to think it goes well beyond the standards that the script course that i've been woods in and let me just point out three things from once that i'd like to emphasize that state beers the bird to establish a  taken at the scene from the defendant is what's tested in the lab and that the scene is not required every person who handled the idea we were to exclude every possibility of tampering more accidental contamination and that's it for sixty that if there's this movie there's officers on the scene securing the scene we know that is a ten to fifteen minute period of time from when they defend it in officer shoot are taken out and arrested and the time that by it's not a situation where if left in the apartment you know opened it's not in a drug house where you can have multiple defendants who have access you have one guy one officer one  this is the same bank so obviously he's getting great credibility to that statement that was why that is the point where the defendant you know if he has any evidence of tampering needs to come forward with you know for entrapment and saying you know this occurred or if you want me to chose to take the stand in denying that you know he gave that to hold or that wasn't the bank that he gave to the officer or provided some and he certainly was very effective in trying to exploit any weaknesses in the chain of evidence he tries to make it appear or argue that you should draw  that his client was set up by the officers because they feel big he's a drug dealer because of the field prior transaction in october and so now they say they want to get him and they've trying to set him up or frame as i said i don't see a viable other defense so he has done the best with a bad job  reasonable choice i think is somewhat of a gamble and what makes it particularly a gamble is that then you do run into this problem of well i have to give that after until the jury some  presented it as such if he were to attack the chain of custody and clean with it wasn't her alone he would essentially he admitting that he was attempting to rip off the police correct well so that in any event the the problem with taking your argument to the logical conclusion in terms of the defendant is going to have to admit to at least one one crime he's been charged with and other crimes that he hasn't been charged with so on and closing argument what he basically says is you can find him guilty of the attempt possession unless of course you don't homeless between your client saying what i just suggested if you were to take have taken the stand and the testimony from the officer relative to the parent was c e o of the chain do you think the jury would have not walked a story that your client made as opposed to the testimony of the police officer such then there would have been a because i'm not sure that you do that you saying that i'm saying if you if you look at this for one of the better term watch glee and you look at how it's presented it really boils down to the jury is going to have to decide whether believes the defendant who didn't testify about the fact that he was something that wasn't there and seeing that it was in the police officers who say that if it was here on base the contest didn't based upon the fact that therefore trial counsel could have made the arguments relative to the one flinches despite the fact that your client didn't testify but now that he's been convicted and we're supposed to use of the burden on