ces expert testimony from the defendants my clients alleged customers most of whom were discovered by law enforcement just two or few weeks prior to the trial and then my can testify regarding struggling go regarding methods of operation based on his or her expertise they can't testify as to everybody d words they can't summarize their beliefs about the defendant's conduct  replete with this type of testimony that was in permissible i can give some examples and some really troubling implications for other types of political cases turning to  exhibit to a just one example i client supposedly said what he did say these guys is the way they is just going crazy it's been a lot of a lot going on a testified that what he meant was a lot of people are getting the heroin thomas with selling this heroin people are pretty easy about it and lots going on like he's going to need some who are the implication here just to give one example is a stock trader who culture supervisor and says they're going crazy and a government law enforcement expert testifies that what she really means is my clients love these penny stocks and the project will be pushing i'm going to need some more been say that my client said or meant the st of the month is a big day to sell amounts of heroin because a lot of people get a check from the government whether it is disability social security they are going to get the most amount of drugs they can ch government expert testified the judge really being the st of the month is a big day to take bribes because throwing cases for throwing cases because a lot of people get paid so they're going to offer a prize if they can't i mean the implications explained to out major and there was precious little lingo if any in these conversations so my only conclusion can be either he abused his discretion or the permissible but the clerk has to take steps to separate somebodies expert testimony from the latest about this israel of cads of he had an understanding from his own observations or our surveillance of this had to redirect it and i didn't want to do that and i observed him three hours ago were taking money out of one dollar bank and putting it into another or something like that but there was no such testimony and furthermore our but i keep finding myself in a position where i feel like i can't really analyze what was let in for what purpose which is what was the problem when you have a fact witness who was then the investigation is now combined with being an expert witness and that's why i say it's not a preferred practice but you know i get where there might be so basis in experience and training and knowledge did well was outside of the existence of this particular conspiracy that some of these statements are in fact in some code that is used by some group of drug dealers who are well leagues is to this geographic area right but ordinarily you'd have to ask the foundational questions you know  you understand what that means yes i do how did that come to be well in syria this is based on my training and with an expert read at least know where that came from where as we're sitting here in this in this sort of mixed witness place where i statement this is the number that i have that is their code for error it exists nowhere and i think you're you're probably right that agent pierce east did have knowledge of this investigation that he used to interpret the sentences but that's improper that's an improper basis for expert testimony and it is in premise a bit for experts to testify or to interpret playing but they took one statement mr overton and expanded it and provided a narrative of what that meant and we know this not least because at one point the prosecutor asked agent your piece about a conversation well just tell us generally what this conversation is about the prosecutor did not ask about specific terms or drug lingo the prosecutor offered to let case provide a running narrative of these and of these of these statements and defense counsel did an excellent job in repeatedly and in detail  objecting to this testimony pretty sinking in pretrial motions exactly the problem that arose in trial and and did any of the testimony that  messages it was it was pretty much standard if we take the if we take that expert testimony out whether we have no control by involving mr overton mr overton was never seen at one thousand one seventeen saturday which was the better of this trade no confidential informant ever said they got carolyn from mr overton there was evidence that mr overton took carolyn from the conspiracy and lose or use it the the expert testimony regarding my client's statements was pretty much stand alone and i would argue that it really provided the roadmap the blueprint for the jury to find my client you'll see a conspiracy without that was never challenged and almost in money or at trial there was only objections or issues that i had with this issue was the methodology and that was appeal and then appellant states in his brief that there is no evidence that appellant had ever lived at or bend to the one thousand and th avenue residence and  of experts and lay testimony but as i see the record as it develops the question still remaining can you ask tell us what this what this what does this conversation mean what is this all about was understand that this which you disagree that those questions and you know and action yes your honor i would disagree with that it it was only very briefly at the at the beginning case in more land in which that in nappies the agent testified both as an expert witness as to troubling that they knew just from their drug trade but also as a lay witness at that term that they had learned that were unique to that work it is a nation and in this case agent st guess was the only person who was qualified to testify about these wiretap calls ok what the prosecutor said that based on your training experience what do the following two sentences mean and that's a little different and i'm wondering whether that poses a problem because that you just kind of made the case for me on this point which is this guy's been this particular witness has been in this conspiracy world quite a long time interacting with a lot of folks so how do we know that this is this expert testimony based on the word or rather what he says or her as part of that they were much shorter than outpost and conference but perhaps that was as long as two sentences however i don't believe that it is improper that way and expert testimony regard the wiretap questions with improper your crap that it is a bit matched and i do not believe that there is a way really to get around that with the exception of the fact that slowly about the wiretap they questioned him so he got the wiretap before any other part of the investigation but regarding what he learned as a lead as an agent in the investigation and what he learned they can give to expert testimony and it is up to them how much weight to give it and whether to believe it or not because even if even if this had only testified to the items that he knew as a as witness as an agent investigating this conspiracy he would have been allowed to testify about his extensive background and not his qualifications so none of that bolster any of his late witness testimony obvious beyond a reasonable doubt due to that as well as just the other overwhelming evidence that how it was involved in this conspiracy that he was talking to these customers which was conceded and cloaking the argument by the defense and so on yes and you're on that expert witness would be hot points and is there any is there any concern that even if there's some overlap between the witness the cooperating witness who testif harmless error question how can we find that there is harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt when you've got at commodities to who was a conspirator who is now testifying himself to get out of the water and advertising his sudden change of conscience and newfound morality how can we find that a long standing the law enforcement officer who is involved in this investigation and has been held out as an expert how can we find that eliminating the testimony of that law conspiracy charge for which there has to be an eating of the minds and that agent cares feast not been permitted to testify certainly it's possible that the jury would have found my client guilty of conspiracy but i don't think we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have been guilty because the customers were found two weeks before trial and my client were busy telling the jurors that thomas can't be trusted that thomas is a drug addict and heroin we give the time this he would use that doesn't sound to me like a drug conspiracy and all the other folks they seem to have different goals in mind that my client my client wanted to get high they wanted to build an empire they wanted money without even pierce case there i think there is serious