sign a letter and give it to moore haven't delivered to the fence counsel same if that was all bogus he did so would you say that it's fair to say that mr hill you're credibility is is someone in doubt even though he supposedly disavowed that letter as was well if that's the case then why wouldn't there be required other people to testify about the the th and the st and then text messages on one or both of those days cannot be used as it missions against his interest in so far as the weight of the drugs argument you answered my question with a definitive no but then you proceed to make the rationale oh great it's your that seems to be inconsistent with the answer because the answer understand why your argument relative to a paucity might have some relevance but i am having a problem having a problem understanding why why in this particular instance an there and done fortunately and here we have a very a witness whose testimony whose credibility severely undermined you have a letter that indicates that no the defendant is not the individual who sold stipulation of the refusal of the stipulation i believe that his record but each individual testified to their participation for example while testified that he's the one who retrieved the license plate number which was linked to e against him so when the instruction was about to be ruled on he said i do not object as long as it's as long as it's modified from the version discussed previously discussed off the record so he's indicating that he did speak about something about that instruction and that informal jury instructions go over he's just related that he didn't have any objection and i don't have a problem r ulating it point right but you made a statement that you presume certain premises in one of those you presume that he was supposed to make of it since there were gaps in the record and he didn't make them then it should be held against him and my point is here your statement was based on either an incomplete or false assumption ok what here he did not he did not and we're just going to assume that the defendant is a very reputable businessman no again this is a credibility to termination and that's left of for the jury and but you're hanging your hat on awfully heavily on the defense representations right now it's in his best interest to to he wants the money he wants the one hundred and eighty dollars what i said when i did write to accomplish the sale may be two different things right that's correct but your argument is the only way the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one gram was delivered to the war or is a person who survives the sampling of the more than one gland and then does he have to also preserve at least one gram where is it sufficient if that person testifies that they weighed the drugs before the victim ingested any amount and that there was at least one gram at the time of the way the s a gram and a half of drugs i gave it to the victim the victim ingested it died that the jury could not find that witness credible and could not determine that the state it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the amount of drugs delivered had been proven to be at least one gram you we've heard all the cases that are scheduled on the call today