case i didn't include all the correct names in mind i can tell you all the facts are from my british come to question has been submitted to this panel and you know what the deal of the argument i believe the argument was february  the government introduced irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence that the iranians were scared to get into to introduce compartment and also gave a closing in rebuttal argument that when viewed in the entire cont i think my dad anything it is someone obvious that they're going to be scared but you have to look at how they actually highlighted this evidence first of all the original material witness the female in this case and testifying given her direct and cro after the second material witness testified and did test applies to his spear the prosecutor specifically recall this witness just to testify about the spear showing the jury that this was an important point from the government and that they wanted to specifically interviews this actually and that's i believe an excellent record one nine one one chance on how they just called her to specifically interviews this issue in the trial and i do think value i'm not sure if it's so i'm not sure it was but the basic thing is there it had no relevance to this case it had no tendency to make any other fact prejudicial this is damaging because one two three four five you fail to alert the trial judge to that issue you brief us for the first time on appeal as far as i can tell well no because if we tell the judge that this is inadmissible for a specific person purpose relevancy and then argue the prejudicial effect on appeal meaning how this could have been playing the jury that's part of the harmless error analysis that this court must take  argue the hard facts your point your point is wrong i'm not going to lecture you but if you're worried about prejudice from evidence your primary obligation is to tell the district court trial where this is prejudicial not just irrelevant there's a world of difference between the two life you might be able to get that just record to say oh you're right i see what you mean council but you gotta make these arguments of the trial court i understand and i wasn't the trial attorney then i'm stuck with the record but the record if he did make a legitimate objection a proper exactly irrelevant which it doesn't go to any elements of the offense that is correct it's a legal issue as this is just a competent lawyer if you want to tell a judge why something is irrelevant you better tell him because you know you've been there overruled i mean you're in a trial court it takes less than the second if you're really worried about something when you're just firing those kinds of objections that usually don't score well school i do believe something is i do believe in discussions i don't have the cite for this but there are some things that h also like to turn to the closing argument that the government if there's no for the questions on that issue because in closing argument the government from the get go started arguing and  is the beginning of a paragraph he goes he knew ladies and gentlemen when the jig was up he said he is missing somewhere but for about four months later he lives there to explain somehow show how he got up early in morning to negotiate this car so he's leaving  red herrings train your attention this case mr gary love it that's different isn't guilty ladies and gentlemen we ask you to find himself there's nothing in there tiny to be evidence absolutely nothing he just repeated statements that he's guilty and he someone doesn't mean that mr scrafton and acted for the specific purpose of financial gain and that's what's required for under the aiding and abetting theory but what makes it worse in this case is the government never even asked for an eating and betting instruction so they actually had to prove that he was going to receive financial gain as the principal so then this not only this argued what was before the jury with the various directions but then also  he's acting for the purpose of financial gain if he himself the defendant comic money i believe i think it's arguable whether or not he has to either just act or someone for the purpose that someone does or for his purposes i question again it depends on the issue meaning for example in this case and the brain to issue most of that is a purely legal argument that applies across the board so i mean i can tell you  asked what went through your mind and the limit response was well it was small it was i got scared because of it and that was it the government never mentioned it again the government never mentioned it at closing argument commercial advantage and you know it's not like you're just helping and somehow someone else gets paid for it but you know about it you have committed this particular crime becomes a crime for financial gain you have a case that says that the other trial where on appeal and you don't yet have a case on that point i don't have a case to give you on that particular point on the on the or here i can understand you now there may not be a case on point that if you're proving aiding  adding that the money is going to somebody else and he's aiding and abetting the smuggling for financial gain of somebody else but if there's no aiding and abetting instruction in this case how how are but then you kind of argue this i think as if you had made an end of getting struck instruction when you're arguing he doesn't personally have to get the money himself yes ok now was there any objection to you doing that now that it's kind  and so is the make the suggestion right that is correct but i do want to comment on one of his statements is that it is he agreed what he is trying to do is urging the jury to apply their own common sense and this is argument from page x or of record to twenty six and if they enter your mind what could have been is well maybe they were followed maybe they didn't care maybe they didn't care about being paid maybe they didn't care about them dying when you hear the word maybe in your minds ladies and gentlem that maybe one is not connected to any evidence whatsoever that you've heard from the man mouth of the gatlin who was a trial attorney is merely speculation there was an objection at that point that mere speculation is not reasonable doubt basically what the prosecutors