the government was correct in using brewton to evaluate the codefendant confession and he is correct about that however the text messages use m evaluating those and the standard that went into it of the standard that he should have used the court shooter he used was preposterous of the evidence now i rely heavily on the court's decision and of course jail and that court said that the preponderance of the evidence standard ensures that before admitting evidence who are full have found it more likely than not that the technical issues and the policy concerns addressed by the fed rules of billions have been afforded due consideration of the court erred the court said and i'll give you i think there is sufficient evidence in the record for which the jury could conclude that the conspiracy that began and osei continued past august o and that the time period of all no mind was a time period in which a jury could conclude that a conspiracy existed and that the messages were and furtherance of it and what is your submission or term of time that he instead of using a preponderance of the evidence he said there was sufficient evidence and then he won't say that a jury conclude could conclude no there's no code we don't mention the gates on it it says here that we are working that that the court said that evidence is placed before a jury when it satisfies the technical requirements of the evidentiary rules which embodying certain legal and policy determinations the inquiry made by a conservative with these matters is not whether the preponderance of the evidence this gets very confusing this got very confusing to me because i think well how can a court do that i'm not i'm still not sure specifically what was wrong what you see what's wrong with gone through a value of the evidence make sure that the rules of evidence happen comply with all policy concerns and the court is not to be looking at whether or not what jurors decide later how do you know that by not saying proponents of the evidence by saying sufficient as opposed to preponderance that the court did not realize that what he had to do was to evaluate whether enough the rules of five and those policies well if we look with what's the harm here wasn't there a fair amount of evidence of the conspiracy quite apart from the text messages and on you know what is that we're going to see more and more and more text messages coming into evidence in the form of transcripts of people's lives and if the court does not take into consideration whether  five minutes and the interview was about twenty five thirty five minutes of that so the time he was outside could have been more than five or ten minutes and the reason that the officers testified that they kept him outside was because they smell kitchen as the location for the statements and so based on this court's precedent he was not impressed at the at the time the statements were made there was also an argument that perhaps his statements were involuntary based on the photographs girlfriend extremely incriminating therefore they are for the coup art needs to show on record that the chorus used the correct standard preponderance of that it made the correct considerations under contempt here it seems to me you don't have any argument about standard you just say they didn't the court didn't articulate a standard but you have to argue with the evidence was properly admitted or not that's where you're that's where the foul