i don't forget many thing and had a complete misunderstanding of the principles that underlie the criminal justice system including the presumption of innocence the burden of proof with that in mind your honor i'm asking this court to reverse this conviction of mr price on the grounds on the first round that the trial court abused its discretion and violated due process of law by not asking the jurors during why dear the perspective yours whether or not they had any reservations about these fundamental principles namely the presumption of innocence burden of proof and the right of the defendant not to testify this was particularly important in this case and that mr bell right price did not testify in his own defense for the very simple for two reasons in prised at least the judge asked the jurors whether or not they would follow the law whether or not they disagreed with that law that was not asked in this case and yet the defense was not permitted to ask whether or not the jurors would follow the presumption of innocence whether or not the jurors would follow me the right the law that a defendant has a right not to testify and is on  attorney supposed exercise peremptory challenges or challenges to cost and it's not enough to say as the government has argued that well cures are presumed to follow the law well how can that be if they don't know what the law is how can they be presumed to follow something they don't know the second reason why the courts should reverse this conviction is that the government calls that the parties would already stipulated that mr price was a fellow but there's a difference between being a felon and five years earlier and still being on parole either years later that's pointed out in the and there's a real danger that the jury will convict because he's a bad person and not for what he did or that they'll use any reasonable doubt they'll they'll turn it against  we have it we have the defense attorney specifically asking the united states attorney as the united states attorney acknowledged do you have any impeachable evidence you have any bad acts evidence even if the thousand amount to a other arrest the agents presumably knew about the record isn't clear it's fair to assume that the agent the case agent had all of the traffic violations in any event what we did find yes i believe there is under kyle's versus whitely and under the supreme court's line and this and this court's line of cases the obligation is on the prosecutor to find out specifically the certainly here not only was there a request in writing there was a specific or request to the u s attorney and i think under those circumstances yes you can impose an obligation on the united states attorney to check with the agent and say look run this person's record run this person's d m v record get me all the things you can on this witness has been a specific request for that by the defense counsel and look what happened this is very unusual very unusual situation look what happened at the next trial in the jury hey she's the only witness to it's credibility again only there it's whether or not the sentence brother made a threat against her but the jury hangs and then there's a prosecutor chooses to reach a plea bargain a served and enormous benefit at very unusual where we can actually say in my view it made a difference so here it clearly made a difference no speculation is and this was a brady violation of the first order negative from a defendant's refusal to testify since mr price was in fact acquitted of the two most serious charges here and that is possession with intent to distribute marijuana and the nine twenty four c count the next issue is the six hundred ninety dollars in cash on his person at the same time that the nine baggies of marijuana were found now obviously the that did not have a bad impact on the jury because he was acquitted of the possession with intent to distribute counts on the brady violation this gets to be a little bit confusing because we've got two separate trials going on here mr price was tried in april two thousand and five and when it phillips testified at his trial during the course of the trial no idea why the jury hung in that case and i think it's a little bit dangerous to start speculating sense of the jury simply reaches a verdict one way or the other although they didn't reach a verdict here they hung after that mr muhammad pled guilty to count one of the indictment he was sentenced to time served which was in fact an eight month sentence so then we return to mr price this case he filed a motion for a new trial based upon evidence that was gathered finding and his finding was that mr walker the original trial counsel would not in fact have used that so that when mr walker was given evidence of the fact to conviction mr walker testified that he thought it was admissible and mr walker testified that he chose not to attempt to attack her credibility in part because mr phillips and mr price were friends his theory at trial was but if you miss a boat and it's really material i'm not aware of any authority nor has any authority been cited for the proposition that the government has an obligation to go follow up on traffic she was not the only governments witness we had three officers who saw the defendant sitting in the back seat of the car with three other individuals they know that he hasn't arrest warrant was in and one of them he's dead but you never know defendant ducked down beneath the driver's seat that he raised up as he then was pushing on the driver's seat he's the only one in the car that's moving as they're stopped he's actually pushing the driver into the steering wheel he's panicking everyone else is sitting there not moving not panicking she's trying to escape from that car a loaded firearm is found underneath the driver's seat we know from the front passenger who testified that it was the defendant who was yelling go go piece of potential impeachment such mosman who sat on this trial who watched all the witnesses who observed this jury said that those traffic citations are so minor i don't think this would have altered anything that is uniquely within the province of the just records discretion to tailor the questions it's very hard at it and they were fair here and they were fair particularly in light of the preliminary instructions and final instructions that were given and in fact the that did create a little more damage when the role of this role which was minimized by the stipulation that he was in fact a convicted felon and the jury was not told how many and you know i think we did we didn't have that stipulation here more i think that's not in the record your honor i don't know if we ever requested it i can tell you that we had no stipulation and so that's why when you in some of the other cases that we've cited to the court there are times where police officers come in and testify they identify a defendant from a surveillance photo it's ignition although it raises the specter of prejudice is not who said about an hour or half an hour before i think i saw something that looked like a gun in the defendant's possession so she was a critical witness and mr walker testified at trial that had he known about this impeaching  information the judge goodwin referenced with the license plate violations which portrayed her in an entirely different light the jury got a completely warped view of her of her character in the first trial as opposed to the second trial the government's withholding of the brady evidence caused the jury to see that antoinette phillips was just just a person not knowing in fact that she was a person who completely was a scofflaw who disobeyed prior orders who didn't care about events in the car supposedly and then they told her and bending over but as judge reinhart pointed out he was on parole he had marijuana and there was a warrant out for his arrest yet every sentence to try to get out of that car having nothing to do with the gun but there