but if you if you they it was either rivera that trial even with redaction as it was done to avoid most of the problems that occurred in this case the wife wasn't allowed to testify as to what she does and i think prosecuted in the with the prosecutor did even the officer who testified you years for carrying a firearm without a license now which if any of those convictions with have to be beside the murder would have to be very caring if any wired to the problem was at the other end earlier too is a standard of review this is an ed case and that means there needs to be clear united states supreme court precedent that means we have to look to grey we have to look to richardson we have to look to britain we don't look beyond that we don't look to other circuit cases you have to ask me the mission it's yes it is and i think my opponent raises some very interesting extensions of the law some interesting things that in the make it imperative that leavers i think actually your honor priester is in our favor in this particular situation i am aware of priests are there were i think fifteen individuals that were involved so there was a much broader conspiracy than we have here however there is one very key point i noticed when i was looking at priests were again christer how to read action and part of the redaction was about individual cars there were i think six cars involved in the christer case and one car particular to where priester was the statement says so how many were in the second car they say the driver and two others there's testimony directly that talks about the driver of that second car and the two others both of whom were on trial priester and a second individual i don't recall his name i think this is actually very similar to that particular point because we're talking about two individuals we're talking about evidence in the context of the trial coming in and that can textual implication pointing pointing to those two individuals and who they are is about the toughest route problem yes you have a but now the trial starts from the opening to the policeman who testifies to the wife as the prize to the slip the closing everything the prosecution does undermines whatever lasting jury i do think the very last instruction that's given after the jury's question which i understand a concern about the class and that's a concerning question that's come up things with the question now i would say first off richardson gray and burton all talk about before the trial you've got to look at it before the trial when you're talking about issues of prosecutorial misconduct and you have to you can fix those things with instructions the court's been very clear i think it's frazer is the united states supreme court case there's also several cases from this jurisdiction and dini in masonry kyler all talk about the fact that when you're dealing with a process  confrontation clause area that the process conduct claim is you can remedial through instruction and the instruction in this case i think is very important that last instruction it's exactly what vas asked for it goes well beyond what a the prosecutor argued about it because she felt it went too far and honestly it went very far and it went well beyond what's required under britain the court basically there he could well have been telling them and they could have read it and they are my point to try to suggest it's done with a wink but i don't think that's true at all and we certainly can't tell from a whole record but is is about as general as you can get the other guys some other guys and particularly in this statement i think we're getting away from mr santiago went to the police station gave them the wrong name and really of aid it was very  with the police and he first came in and i think it's entirely possible for the jury to believe that he was being evasive that he wasn't getting the things he was saying look it wasn't me it wasn't me it was some other guy it was some other guy in fact i've actually had statements where we've been up on for merits and when i went back to look at the original statement realized that some of those phrases the other guys were actually used that's what these guys who knew those who there's like two people states dealt expressly with a situation like that here in which we know is a fact that the jury knew that the defendant who  objecting both to the statement and to the joint trial had been implicated in the statement and we know it is a fact because it said so now that is it's a little bit came to pay us and you know is right i mean i would point out that the prosecutor argued the time of trial and i think it was a good point the jury's question we're assuming that and they probably didn't but that could have been their intent they could have looked at the trial the testimony looked at everything and said went back in the room we don't know what happened in there and went back in the room and said oh come on some other guy you know what the other guy is it's vazquez look at the testimony blah blah blah entire problem that's an but that's me i guess you're walking right you know his argument actually your honor i'm not richardson says if the jury disappeared i think he was at these on the facts of this case i think he would have been tried had we had access to him the jury was specifically instructed not to give much thought to rivera i don't know what they did but the point is under these facts there was a broader conspiracy a three men and our prosecutor actually argued that there were two shooters rivera and that yes one gun to shoot no actually there was evidence of a second gun it was a bullet that took out a tire there's only five situation where one way or another the jury made it clear that they believe the defendant on trial was the person implicated in the statement does that what's cases that you are i don't know of any united states  great talks about looking at the piece of paper at the start of trial that as judge greenberg says we're assessing what happened what we knew before the trial started you look at that piece of paper at the start of trial and you say there's this point and answer i would simply say that my point is i agree with you your honor and i think that's what should have been done here and i think was they looked at the trial they anticipated the testimony what i think issue with is looking at the process torie on the conduct allegations and all those