argument unfolded which is not unusual in the heat of trial but i assume that the defense lawyers here was quite surprised that each encounter his response to the question because of course we know from the record that coconspirators about what those words mean not there were no one operating witnesses in this case so there was no one part agent be able to talk to you and say hey this is what we were talking about the other side of that is that but isn't it appropriate for an expert look assume he was qualified isn't it appropriate for an expert in order to help the jury tell what those words might mean that a jury is not familiar with but i'm not i don't know agent vale personally he does have experience in car captain and what the word whip means but not what isn't in the record so we don't know that and then the jury certainly doesn't know that doesn't know how to evaluate that testimony and the other main thrust of that i do believe stems from a local rule that the judge uses in this case the guy would have gone directly against her local rule of not identifying expert testimony there are jury instructions about opinion testimony and one person was identified individuals the morning of december twelfth but other than that authorities said no clue who mr walker was when they arrested and they admitted that they had been monitoring conducting surveillance on mr walker  role coming late in the game that those aren't defenses so i'm the first to acknowledge that but again i would i would simply ask that the unique facts of this case given the fact that the conspiracy count was part of this case was part of the instructions and obviously was it was a conviction the fact that that is being removed from the picture a warning with mr walker spoke to our involvement twelve the role i would argue that this was that this was a separate count i think in all honesty there's not that i could find much guidance on this issue as far as a count being withdrawn after the conviction but doesn't that call against your argument the fact that it was arnie does a separate count the judge gave the clear instruction that you should consider each count of the indictment separately and the evidence on each count as to each defendant separately doesn't tackle counter argument i would  based on the fact that i'm not sure if this is on the right answer your question but the jury was supposed to consider these facts and under the law there was no north attempt to enter the promises which is a requirement under twenty one thirteen there was no along with the other to find its guilty so i don't not sure if that's going to answer your question but i guess what i'm trying to say is that the other count obviously was included and it frankly should not have been and  again that the facts as far as what happened post you know post arrest or i should say when they were first off the sirens first when i admit that that mr walker exhibit of what they were doing that's impaired because that's the only evidence that there is no testimony from any confidential informant or other conspirator any other witness which sheds light on what mr walker knew concerning the no which i think was presented to the jury yes there's no indication on the fifty you know up who he's talking to if he's even talking to somebody if he's talking to himself there's no mention of mr locker on there the prosecution frankly takes they want both sides of the point on this they say it's exculpatory even though it's the same time they're saying it's incriminating they can't have it both ways this obviously was incriminating the jury the video graphic and photographic evidence that the government introduced shelling and mr jett and mr in the case of committing the three robberies none of the defendants make any objections about those videos or the photographs being in the bowl those were  truth i think i have to start with an apology and preparing for the argument i realize that i sort of left my best argument behind because i did not make it clear that the mystery statement was edited because all references to mr eclipse that squarely in the richardson marsh category of edited statements are not written violations we think richardson the marsh answers the proof violation claim clearly and even if not it's neither powerful however as my recollection of the trial it wasn't necessarily said then and so it could have that statement could have been made later when all three of them that been arrested so i but i did i do think it's somewhat fair to say that  block that you can't hear through and i think it's unlikely and i think there's a big big leap there but i guess i'm a little uncomfortable saying there's no chance they could have made that inference because they were arrested the guy i think it's unlikely and i think under and not i think but steps inferentially incriminating but that said i don't want to go to parks i do think there's the possibility that the jury could have inferred based on them being arrested the same time even though it was a concrete wall but even if that inference was made it that may need expert wasn't he interpreted the context of the conversation and the abjection was made at that point so i think with the we're going hunting there was a little agent's training and experience and then asked if i the weapon in the balance and those sorts of things which i think are clearly sceptical to expert testimony would you agree that it would be improper for a case  testify about the meaning of a conversation that he was not part of that didn't involve any slang terms i think the case agent as a fact witness can testify and giving some context to the to if the agent was testifying about terms that were obvious or apparent then mr mckissock argument runs right up against harmless error and i think that's true for everything he said because whether the car finish balance beam problem with i think it's really difficult to imagine that any of these i don't want to say small war but somewhat ancillary claims would have overridden the jury's own opinion about what they saw in the video  of criminal jargon so i think that it's somewhat encompassed in an age and how do we know that translation which i think it's what the whole point so i would say that in an ideal world i think that the foundation could have been more robust and it might have been more helpful that being said as a general proposition we believe that being an f b i experience i agent would training and classes in this in this same sort of criminal area will at least generally lead to the presumption that they know the general slang terms and i think everyone agrees are somewhat general slang terms they're not terribly specific has experience dealing with criminal criminal world criminal discussions between each other is likely to understand these terms and again i don't need to beat a dead horse on it but the definition  and we have two bases here bases here first we have the portal proximity so the agent saw him within three days of the robbery where the jury saw him a year and a half later so that is some basis that he would be better capable of identifying mr dunn the jury member too but how could there be anything when the agent himself hi catherine really wasn't much of a difference maybe there was a little difference in weight but you might have an argument there if there was some appearance here we don't have a marked difference as you yourself seem to be acknowledging when you say that you know these guys were dead ringers for the people on the videotape that's sort of an admission that there wasn't some you know there was a strong justification for getting in this not transactional i d this is a non transactional i d so we agree certainly we don't have a strong foundation is that we don't think that sets the minimum either we think that a little change uncovered no one who can identify my client which means no witness somebody who was there and you have to read it in in the context of the questions that came before in the question that came after and the question contest i think and i would have been apparent to anybody who was paying attention so i think the reason the government doesn't think that can be the senator is because i think that allows some gamesmanship and to ask a i don't think that was true here but if  in context you're asking these questions and your question that is a little broader and then because i which i think is not intentionally but i think that it was unintentionally happened here start the questioning started with any of the victims of the robbery to him and in context we can i think we can quibble about that but that one particular question did not limit it to the victims and it said no person i think that's the key phrase uncovered no person who can identify my client know one unbiased party there who we know we have heard what was in her head and the judge and she said it was clearly them too so with that the court has no further questions i would just wrap up again by saying the surveillance videos here prove their case the judge found it was clearly established the defendants are not made any objection to that testimony nor that they mustered any reason why those videos didn't show them the videos were played first but i don't want to say that of course i believe so but please don't  this was supposed to be a trial with twelve jurors not thirteen the government not only had an f b i agent identified mr jett as the person on the surveillance video but the government prosecutor got up a closing argument and after urging the jury that might be true but then the prosecution gets up on rebuttal and says you could use his testimony as identification to help you and yours there's one thing that mr guy had or aging guy had that you all don't have he sta relying as much on the cellphone evidence which was certainly circumstantial but not compelling enough when you don't have any eyewitness who can identify these men what was your evidence of the talking to the wall i think it's pretty clear that that he is talking to mr walker so at the least we would ask for a retrial on that issue without without that statement and if there are any furthe