thereafter they see the vehicle and actually get behind it to call more units as they are behind a vehicle it stops on its own accord and the officer see a female exit the right rear passenger seat he sees the officer sees in orders him to stop identifies himself as a police officer were and mr bruce immediately runs out of the opposite side of the vehicle meanwhile his partner approaches the driver and detained him over in the area that miss allen will exit at that time he signs his flashlight on the floor of the f one fifty on the right rear passenger floor and sees the fire and that's of the critical point for the government's evidence that that shining a flashlight because miss allen testified in and i want to alert the court to this person theory which was obviously heard by the jury and rejected miss of all of those circumstances particularly the timeline of miss alamosa testimony what was going on in that back see you consider the driver's license you consider the defendant's flight and as your honor do you consider his conduct actor words or was the jury given in terms of the explanation for the driver's license being found there not by the government by the other side i don't recall i if i recall correctly the other side argued that it was his vehicle and so you know he would have belongings in there as kind of a natural occurrence to the ownership of the car that was stipulated to by the parties that mr bruce actually owned the pickup truck that was that they were driving in that night the government  what was there any specific explanation for why he would keep the strivers license in the right rear door i don't recall if there was any explanation from either side about why that particular driver's license would be in a  car that might in the side pocket it was an odd place for someone to have a driver's license but because they were going to separate or should hope the government had an explanation since you consider it part of the circumstantial evidence well it's circumstantial evidence that he was seated in the back seat for a long period of time that's all i mean yes your honor and that's and we in our closing though we it's a small piece of wood of evidence to indicate that he was back there and you know as when the him in the backseat and so that's why it was it was a critical piece of evidence interviews during the government's case in chief because we're not aware with the defense may or may not be in an defenses can change during the course of the trial  it was a standard glock armor on our police issue style firearm it was there's a lot of testimony about it being under the front seat the picture that was taken and shown to the jury which is government's exhibit five was tak before any law enforcement or anybody moved it officer rodriguez testified that as soon as you saw the army call technical services and they came a took photographs of how the firearm looked right when he saw it and it's not under the see it's halfway there shooting under the seat halfway on the floor you can see it from the visible eyes standing outside of the vehicle and that's a critical factor i think for the when the jury was shown that photograph to determine whether or not a reasonable person in that back seat would have noticed the firearm had it been completely under the seat i think the argument proposed by counsel that you sound i was in a position to know whether or not someone else put it in in the backseat that night would be would have more weight and it just does it because it's it's literally right on the floor was there testimony or other evidence about how difficult it would have been to have put the firearm there from the front seat someone sitting in the front seat there wasn't testimony directly to that your honor's point however the government did put on a witness testify if there was another firearm found in the front seat we their government did it because during the course of the trial the defendant or appellant made several references to the driver as potentially being the owner of the firearm and the government put on the the fact that a firearm was found right under the driver's seat where rolando had been sitting to make an argument and i think the  i think it would be speculation there's nothing in the record to indicate why they want fingerprinted from my personal experience the resources of different law enforcement agencies the timing i  think what gets fingerprint what doesn't often times there's the fingerprints or the attempts to get fingerprints doesn't bear fruit and so i i believe that they make different they have different categories of crimes that they're going to use the provide for the defense obviously in there their use of of the impeachment of her because the recording is completely almost completely there is a couple of english sentences the beginning i don't want to mislead the court but it is almost completely in record nonetheless the defense counsel with me able to make pretty good use of the transcript in impeaching her with that fact that she had never said it and that what she had said to agent fargo or task force officer for hard on september counsel makes in his brief and he made it at the district court level regarding the tone of voice that that context that tone of voice analysis is typically not and i couldn't find a case that said exactly what i am what i existence of the prior statement or the existence of the of the lack of saying something on a prior occasions and by way of example is grand jury testimony grand jury testimony is typically given out to the defense prior to it's very destructive or helpful it would require that that you know every prior statement that was recorded and somehow in spanish be played before the jury and i don't think there's any precedent and finally just with regards to the jury instructions requested by the defendant there's there's two instructions that are the government's argument is basically the same on both and that is that they were substantially covered by the course instructions he the court advised repeatedly that the defendant had no burden to put on evidence and a lack of evidence could suffice to to acquit him and most importantly which is that third prong of the the analysis when considering proposed instruction is that there is no prejudice he the defense counsel is able to argue all of his points that that we'll take a brief recess