i pointed out in my grief several reasons why the informant cannot be considered a confidential informant  parte proceedings the not so not only were the wrong questions asked but there was were not sufficient questions you know in various areas for example the court never really fully developed or inquired about the facts concerning the consideration that the informant was given given guy by the government for involving mr gubb in that in the also there's a second alternative problem whether it's relevant and helpful to the defense and here i think you get into the prejudiced if you link the two together even assuming that the informant were to get up on the witness stand and say no i didn't could joel or induce mr got to do to do this he was more than willing all the time i didn't course and i didn't play upon our friendship you still have the factor of the fact that he's being given consideration by the government and i think if the jury is in essence being told by the court that and not being called to testify credibility determination of whether or not the informant is lying based upon the given consideration but that there's talent thing that has to go until there's another side to the relevant helpful so how can we say that the court got it wrong when they and i believe the court of appeals never looked at the fact that the informant was was being paid consideration i think that's a critically important factor for mr good to be able to put that witness on the stand and cross examine him on that fact rather than have it come out the way it did that this witness simply could provide absolutely nothing that can be helpful in the court of appeals failure to look and use those facts asked about whether or not there was some sort of cordial and that cetera and he said well no not really i think that's an area of cross examination so i think when you say well no not really you're saying maybe there is something there but i don't its case however the whole flavor of the transcript indicates that the come control important in this case was not an active participant was not participate participating in the negotiations when he called the when he called the defendant in the petitioner and all he stated in this is the only information we have on the record was that he has a a buyer who would like to buy ten pounds of but it's also the entrapment defense was actually one that was advocated that trial till then it would seem that this time period as the hearing progressed that everyone had in mind that this was definitely a possibility i'm sorry vandal that well in terms of you know i also get back to the fact that this is a balancing test that needs to be applied this isn't just so much of the case relevant or helpful before hand in the peers that there was a history of intimidation to people in the community that he was truly concerned about this individual c i and the court over time excuse me if there's no for the informant is an active participant in the crime and there is no balancing test under  states that and here i'd like to point out some of that in rebuttal of some of the things that show he was a very active participant then i think it's been over look a little that perhaps by myself and  come and arrest mr gupta so he was heavily involved in this heavy not been working with the law enforcement agency in this regard it was just involved privately with mr cooper he would have themselves been convicted and he would not have been only use the exculpatory evidence has they did not use the alternative relevant and helpful past it would have been relevant and helpful to put josh on the stand have to have them admit that yes he's being given consideration