reserve three minutes read that all things your honor yes thank you we are here because my client was found guilty at a trial that was fundamentally flawed at the closing in this advice he was attempting to hide behind this court and hard when the government made the direct statement that the defendant was trying to hide behind the evidence i understood that to me he was hiding behind it i'm not testifying the entire must of the rebuttal was he might try it was hiding behind the lawyers behind the accountants who took the state the witness stand by if i had exercise constitutional right not to take the stand and that should never have been commented on let alone argue why is that my use these professionals they're the talking about the fact that my client didn't stand in front of the jury and take that witness stated it's not me or he was sitting in the car in the courtroom it's not where what the evidence they are coming on the evidence he can stand in front of you that his he did give an instruction i would say that that structure is weak i would say that instruction in of itself is not enough to cure it in already there was an instruction as well and a number of cases there and instructions as well if in every case all you need is the trial court to say don't hold it against her in rebuttal closing the most powerful moment of the trial i mean this was a very long trial and it was a boring trial i was well spent it was plea delivered and it went right to the heart of my client's constitutional rights and one little instruction is not simply not sufficient and that's not a lot you can consider the instruction of the defendant's constitutional rights more than that and the instruction was insufficient you're right your honor the district court understood what that comment was about perfectly clearly the issue ten hand the government through beyond a reasonable doubt that balanced view of the evidence that that comment did not influence the jury you can take into account the instruction that you have to take into account of a lot of other things as well and it was a common one my client was sitting in the courtroom not that it was a fair comment on the evidence but it was a comment about where he was sitting and i just stand in front of you has anything to do with murder my client  percent of the people in america with our criminal convictions and also violated the fourth are just that because it did not take into account the taxes that he paid on that money and it did not take into account his costs which was i submit his salary which he put into it he was he was working at the company he gave to this is a case where it wasn't in a legal supposed i guess i'll just leave how strong do you think the record evidence has to be for us to find it harmless because you're not saying cured of instructional alone is enough but you also aren't saying  certainly sufficient that an isolated comment quickly corrected did not affect the verdict on the if it will stand with respect to the other issues with respect to the forfeiture issue there's one point i just wanted to address briefly which is on the services are to me that falls out of that because the overhead which is the other exclusion of that is part and parcel of the part about taxes you know apply providing services but taxes are  made the right direction to raise this issue so i don't think the circumstances i can discount his salary although if we're talking about basic fairness here i would do so i think that the district court was saying we care about the constitution care about fair trials we take away people's liberty and people's money and you have to do it there thank you very much