the supreme court in opera was concerned about the inherent reliability of confessions and they also in voice are concerned about and noted that our system of justice is not presented independent of the confession to any of the elements not only to the financial gain element but also to the fact of an injury they're all you know yes rather that there's a lot of confusion there's a lot of argument about what the evidence was but i think that the best way that i really see what the evidence was a look at the record now the government calls only one witness inspector all very that was present at during count one inspector all very testified that he had no personal knowledge of mr clarinets and yard to ten testify that he gained all this information from other officers that's the art to a lot he said he didn't know he didn't really know whether or not mr clare was the driver of the passenger the only testimony that mr clara was perhaps the driver came from hearsay and that was objected to there was a motion to strike it wasn't stricken but the only honest before the jury that mr clara my client was in fact the normally it would your honor however in this case after cross examination the inspector admitted and here it's you nineteen that all he really knew was that prosecution was a client he admitted to that therefore he recanted all of his previous testimony and this is an  d my client in court he never he it wasn't even clear whether he even saw my client and based on the record i don't think he ever did it there's no testimony whether or not my client was coming into the country or leaving the country and i think on a  desire to invent bringing people in the united states for financial gain they have no bearing at all in terms of assessing whether the confessions admissible in counts one two and if not why not yeah i think that the evidence the evidence wouldn't be having this conversation is the would be insufficient evidence on the rule twenty nine but the question is whether given the fact that there is a confession and given the fact that there's a subsequent occasion on which the same person who can fast there allegedly was someone it was illegal driving in the car not clear whether the passenger a driver apparently had an idea that was identification else fall in counts three and four on the other hand there was a person in the trunk of the vehicle and i secret compartment and that person said that they were paying money it's not at all the common scheme or plan here because in one town were dealing with the passenger perhaps the driver where there's no evidence of knowledge there's no evidence of  gain what we go to is even congress's intent when they increase the penalties for this offense and made it a greater penalty for doing it for financial gain with a recognized was that this wasn't adding a new offense what it was doing was recognizing aggravated circumstances in which there should be a greater penalty they're not saying this is a new offense in fact they're saying that it was the offense itself was the entry coming in under thirteen twenty four eight to be two there is no need even in that case even in these cases to prove that he received financial gain making me an agreement ok that's his that's issue too ok for one though we're talking about whether the financial game however you showing is part of the core well i think that goes to it because if if there is no need for him to even receive that financial gain that's not the injury that is that the core of the offense or somebody is out of the  is somebody getting financial gain no i respectfully disagree the core is the injury to the united states of someone being brought in illegally and i think it would be more akin to a murder a murder for either for hire or in the heat of passion whatever the motivation was whether there's someone that was there see money t what we have specifically in this case we have the subsequent event from two thousand and four in which you're receiving money we had altered passports of the people that you brought in in two thousand and one implying that business operation the people that were there have had photographs put on to alter passports they were of different last names other than the defendant himself it's in you waiting again that there was no familial relationship or that it was in anything other than for a business relationship and we have that there was no other explanation given and i recognize they don't have the burden to prove otherwise there is still no other reasonable explanation for why they came in with the  passports that there was no familial relation and that mr clare was bringing them in at that time now this is in addition to the that the confession and as i said depending on what the clerk with corroboration here is absolutely  dr and i don't believe that it's required of the government in this case but i do believe that it was sufficient because the staff itself well i won't rehash that argument  pretty correct what else in addition to that the fact that the two thousand and one incidents as explained by testified she by agents vargas and old very involved the altered passports what we also presented w copies of the driver's license and the passport of mr calero that were seized in two thousand and one that was actual physical evidence that was presented at trial and  his conduct of the circumstantial evidence and and we're not saying that it has to meet the burden of side but the evidence that we presented certainly did imply that in addition to the his contact in the two thousand and four  entry not the fact that there was intent or what there was knowledge of that of an illegal person in the in the vehicle in addition to the subsequent events assuming that was probably of had any problem value under four for the or any other evidence