the form and having procedure where the discussion takes place in camera procedure here that this record kind of had a hybrid procedure in that she ordered the government to what you know how how the information would be relevant i doubt possibly could a person could have been in the laundry or you know any of the possible defenses so when the court went and the court  and in came to the conclusion that it was not and here you have a heightened security concern don't you the heightened security concern is that the person who supplied the information was  obviously can't propose all the questions that might be relevant that's that's exactly why presence of counsel is necessary and there might have been more questions that were triggered by the information that the answers the court counsel not being there that's what i really like how the requests if there is really no harm in this case there is really a harm to defense counsel being present in this case because there's always the the possibility the defense counsel will find out and we'll find out the identity of henderson which is looking back in a situation where the evidence is overwhelming in henderson what she has a bank robbery you had to positive id to non ids and a picture that was not clear enough this prison issue khaki's this these drugs were as much as fifty six hundred dollars in the prison market and as was argued before the that it did before the district court you might find a penny on the floor you might find a quarter a dollar but what how often do you find a hundred dollar bills people don't misplace stuff this valuable particularly in prison and moreover more moreover if somebody exemption is brain the defendant do you honestly think that he would that they would need to do ten grams of heroin as opposed to just one so under any circumstances the evidence you is overwhelming as it was in henderson this course now has the benefit of seeing how the defense is played out seeing out a case played out and there's really no question that looking at the comparing statement that this was the largest city seen one in fact he had these other nations heading for parents and that's right here and truthfully the defense argument here is they're entitled to a new trial because this was in fact the second largest as opposed to the event if the defense had been able to we could play this out just kind of two ways you can look at it and i think the impeachment idea first that agent vogel says the most i've ever seen on one person the evidence comes in that in fact during his time and there's a slightly misleading connotations to what he said so well perhaps important in a trial no jury never heard that and again the jury never heard that and so in this case but in this case you look to the rest of the evidence and in particular you can look to the rest of  because we're not in a situation like we were in davis where after the trial was found out that the that the agent whose testimony was that issue had been stealing drug money and was indicted here all you've got is one small statement the rest of  this was a lot of heroin to be valid in prison and of course the standard is whether it probably would have resulted in a new trial and given the sheer weight of the evidence probably would have resulted in an osteopath to me probably would have