allow cross examination into important parts of the plea agreement of a witness who was the government's primary percipient witness against mr schoenberg the alleged marijuana conspiracy and the terms and conditions under which the defense counsel which i desire to cross examine this witness whose name was robert woodbury provided that  kleinfeld could you help me with that the second issue in the case assuming that the district court erred could you tell me that or whether it's harmless beyond a reasonable doubt evidence that you could not put in to the rest of the evidence in the case your honor the i think that the standard is that as set forth i think i just cited as third circuit that's the chandler case and i know it's not binding upon this court but i think that the standard is because it's a constitutional error it has to go beyond harmless if there's which the government has provided benefits to a witness and in fact the trial that we're doing right now it's a big issue in this trial but in my view and what we have here is the plea agreement and paragraph sixteen plea agreement which says that the parties understand that should the defendant knowingly provide incomplete or untruthful testament when for mission pursuant to the agreement that basically  assume that the judge erred in keeping out the evidence if you was whether the defendant sold marijuana or not and i want to know what other evidence  there that he sold marijuana or that he didn't sell marijuana well in this case  of varies marijuana she received it and it sat in his refrigerator for of approximately one week and he smoked some of it but he did not sell it credibility question between mr schoenberg and mr woodbury and we were not allowed to go into during cross examination mr with various reasons and it seems to me that you were cut off from asking the ultimate question perhaps there was some misunderstanding about the focus of the there was a substantial amount of the money was there not of about took the balance from but i judge people said i'm not going to allow you to get into that because it was within the jury's province to determine credibility of the church to determine whether mr woodbury was telling the truth and i respectfully submit that that was incorrect because the paragraph sixteen expressly stated that it was the government which determined whether this witness was testifying truthfully  not for purposes of cooperation for purposes of receiving here's rule thirty five motion and if they did not determine that he was telling the truth then arguably he would  reply well i don't know whether they would have the right but they would certainly have within the discretion the ability to either file it or not file it but i guess what was important in this case was that people he had to persuade was the government not the jury that he would tailor as testimony to what they what the government wanted to hear as long as they were content with him saying whatever it took to get a conviction that that would be as testimony your honor you hit the nail on the here that is exactly correct that is exactly right that's our theory and you know and these drug cases in other cases we  witnesses who of entered into agreements with the guy whereby if they cooperate and provide substantial assistance then of course substantial assistance in our view means conviction they will get a rule thirty five motion but on the other hand if they do not then they will not get that rule thirty five more and that is a great motivation for somebody who's in a federal penitentiary to fabricate fabricate and falsify testimony i see that i have a minute and a half left and i'll reserve the rest of your honor thank you  we can see you and i don't know what you're seeing i'm actually seeing a triple split screen it appears like there's three cameras ya the courtesy of the court allowing us to do this in this matter the united states believe your honor this is an extremely narrow issue when you look at actual questions that were asked by mr hoover stall and that was stricken cross examination by his honor of who's telling the truth the other wasn't exactly a trial but it was the terminations whether the witness was going to get prison time and if so how much and for people have to weigh those those factors in making this type of thing but again i believe his rulings are very narrow your honor for please the court i said i think most of your skepticism of defense testimony  being paid by would bar each other either in cash or by getting his marijuana bill reduced by sending these money wires down to the arizona area to pay for them the marijuana  if you apply that standard beyond a reasonable doubt i think the court even though there was not a multitude of witnesses there is sufficient evidence to show that it was overwhelming in relation to sean and very for the conviction of the two counts to which he was charged your penalties not about the narrow issue of the judge trying to control the trial court and the presentation of evidence before a jury not to jury so that they know it was their role to determine the truth and if anything else happened after the fact record that is where mr beginning a line fifteen where the court says that it has nothing to do with who is the arbiter of whether or not this witness is telling the truth in front of the jury and of course i stick to the court but logical conclusion or extension of understanding of his understanding of this paragraph is that because the united states is a party to this lawsuit and because the united states has an interest in its how that is the conviction i schoenberg the witness will think that if he does not assist the united states in the obtaining a conviction that is the agreement may be voided and he may not get his r thirty five motion i think that is the heart of the issue in a sense and i think that it goes beyond harm with or even if we are applying that harmless error standard and if prostitution a violation thank you thank you