for decisions was a centrally with respect to the conspiracy charge a one witness identification case informant frank hilton was the only person who testified that lewis figaro received drugs of any time and to show how close a case this was while testimony was presented the jury took seven days to reach its verdict and that verdict was a partial rejection of what the informant said informant it testified he gave her when and cooking to miss the figure oh the jury found the defendant not guilty with respect to her were on material issues for example the number of kilos of drugs that were so i think it can be agreed that the number of kilos that a person transferred is an important number at trial the witness testified the number  informant's given year that he presented on direct testimony that he was reformed perjury on direct testimony knowing that he would be attacked for prior perjury delayed a case prosecution alysa testimony that from the witness that he lied about certain things that the prior trial but told the truth about others and the important fact there would be a presence in the use of this trial the witness said i never had a gun in connection with the other case and when i said that at the prior trial that was true but again in the prophecy actions here he told the prosecutors that he had a gun in that prior case the gun was his just as the drugs were his this jury should have been told that he was lying to them on the stand as he spoke to money drugs kilos quantities those are things that affect jurors there i don't use guns i don't know much much about guns casting him as a again a reform not such a bad guy the jury should consider and hence his credibility when his impeachment material we could prove that he lied about a gun in a prior occasion that he had actually carried a gun in during drug deal that's a different thing you're a joy you look at this guy and you're saying well you know he stores guns he's not that bad he used a gun during his drug dealing the jury should have been known about that and then to emphasize the unfairness to defend it was on summation the government after blocking such impeachment then turned around in argued strenuously that defense attorney spent a lot of time talking about an impeachment in consistencies but didn't hit any big ones talk about having your cake and eating it too you keep it out and then you turn around and say he didn't score any points this same before ten months ago if i had just seen somebody picture a license ten months ago i can think of recognizing well when it's months later when it's been suggested to you by the people who are responsible as to the proper police identifications we all know why showing the witness one photo is an improper police identification and we also know why shellie and the belated photo array is essentially worthless given the original that was and we take great opposition to that the witness had conducted thousands of identification procedures including in homicide cases as a new york city detective seven o two clearly says expertise can be defense counsel had to argue to think nothing but had no there in lies the rub and this is what happened with some of the other things in this case the defense was left to establish its points through the people's witnesses i want to quickly move on to the counsel to do it through the case age counsel told the judge that given its concerns over the case agent that he would not give the desired impeachment sure enough the agent rejected the attempts in impeachment thereby affirmatively damaging  requiring the making the peach with all the more necessary on the one hand the courts at the head try it out with this witness when it failed and for the concerns of moving the trial along to the judge to allow it for i want to conclude in my last minute talking about she didn't say she could be she would not be free impartial and to show you that she could deliberate after the court spoke to her the court returned her to the deliberations and had the jury resumed we continued on arguments the case ended and the jurors were sent home at that point she wasn't told she was removed she didn't stand up and say oh i can't continue what had happened if when the judge returned to deliberations ten minutes later they came up with with the court have said all i can accept this verdict because the juror was incapable of proceeding no the verdict would have been accepted and would have been urged by the people to be it's taken the proof is in the pudding she could deliberate and she continued to deliberate and she should not have been removed because after she was removed an alternate came in and within a day she was alone