right absolutely could not mention his statements but it's the under reaction is this how an innocent person behaves or should he have done this other thing when he was arrested clearly if it person behaved he went over the line all right he's coming across the border right with drugs mr r and he has an obligation to disclose all the contents of the vehicle right yes your honor all right and then has not been released from the border search as you know so you're correct so we're at the border and the officer is conducting the search absolutely that's when the reaction comes and all the officer does is testify what he observe would be indignant and object to this that's what an innocent person would behave that's with that the benefits trampled as far as the second issue your honour's we have no burden the defense has no burden to present anything that's been long held even though the prosecutor says we have the right to do this you can't comment on the defendant's right to do something don't comment on my right you either bring in the evidence and of as a defense attorney i'll challenge you and your evidence but don't tell me what my burden is and don't shift the burden to me lastly the issue is whether or not a foreign document i don't think it's on point judge i don't think it's relevant the fact of the points is that you can't comment on a person that nobody can comment under defendant's burden to do anything at trial it's not relevant all talk about how the prosecutor did not improperly comment on the defendant silence here is the defendant was not silent he made a statement he said ok ok after deflating and dropping his head and the prosecutor then commented on this statement it was perfectly permissible for the government to say that his statement was inconsistent with someone who lacks knowledge but consistent with someone who knew that the cocaine was in the vehicle  that was never implicated in this case because this was pre arrest silence according to build up lingering beckmann the defendant was at the secondary inspection area he had been handcuffed detained put in the south the drugs had been discovered he didn't even know what the what the inspector distinguishing characteristic in that the defendant did not testify that case but in vanderveen the defendant did not testify and the court found that the prosecutor's comments about the defense failure to present exculpatory evidence was permissible because the prosecutor had  repeatedly reminded the jury where the burden of proof lied and had repeatedly had never mentioned the defendant's failure to testify which happened in this case the prosecutor repeatedly remind the jury that the government had the burden of proof the court reminded the jury that the government had the burden of proof and it was in response to defense counsel's arguments that where's the gas tank why didn't the government bring the gas tank why are they hiding the gas tank it's perfectly permissible for the prosecutor to then come in and say they had they had the right to bring i even if the court believes that the prosecutor's comments were improper in this context first of all it's an abuse of discretion standard and second it was harmless because the other evidence of knowledge was very strong in this case the defendant was the driver he was owner and occupant of the car carrying thirty two pounds of cocaine that had a street value of two hundred fifty thousand to one million dollars this court that has held the evidence is sufficient support a conviction and here there was even more evidence the defendant was evasive and nervous at the border sixty seventy percent of the gas carrying capacity of the gas tank had been eliminated by the modification of the gift and it was very interested in the search very wide eyed he kept wanting to get out of the car his statements when he didn't even know that the drugs have been discovered the agent walked up to him just to cure him and he said ok ok and he put his head down and deflates the jury would have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence of knowledge was there now i'm going to talk about how the known from from the state's argument is that we need to look at the evidence but i'd ask the court to do is look at it from the jury's perspective what we need to do is we need to realize we're dealing with the jury that for the most part are lawyers and from their perspective what do they understand the law when a government official representing the united states tells them that they are if you consider what was not said because that's not the w means that he's not innocent that the found it was not innocent that's wrong when the when the prosecutor tells the jury that the defendant has a right to bring in evidence the evidence that the defendant brought in at trial to say that they've got holes in their case while i made reference to it in the there was a whole lot of discussion about asking the court to read that evidence number four and to document number four i'd ask the court to redact it because the court was going to use it for the truth of the matter