though there was plenty of that striking of names so that there weren't any names just references to other other guys and that there had to be other guys because of the nature of the crime so wasn't telling anything to the here i didn't make my question clear the bruton issue is the person who gives the confession but doesn't testify says that the defendant who's sitting at the defense table did it and then or defendant who's can't cross examine him but in this case it looks to me like the confessing that individual doesn't say that the person sitting at the defense table did it so they're not going to cross hostage taking with the arms with holding the people against the will you basically have a gray issue there is to say by referring to this cipher you guys are on rank your argument is it's obvious that the blanket is the people sitting in the courtroom motions as far as for as far as the confrontation issue   on the other bad acts of the various prejudicial evidence that came in my thought was as i read the briefs on that that probably some of it was hard to see you have any practical effect either because the conceitedly admissible evidence was so overwhelming and is there something here that wasn't overwhelming where really might have been tilted well as far as i don't think that when you look at whether there was very it was how most gun reasonable doubt you look at  my client went in read that the room where the people were taken i don't think there's any direct proof that shows that he did it with the intention that's in the conspiracy to harbor these people feds used to denominate the defenses by name there to some other do defense that means all these bad things were done but not by me and there's the empty chair defense all these bad things were done but by somebody who's not charged today and who should have been and what i'm looking for here is all these bad things were done but not by me and maybe they're all done by luis the guy and by the other fellow who's a fugitive never got caught and it looks to me as the leader of those defenses are here instead of the defendants who are at the defense table were off early implicated they could not really show that they weren't even there and it looks as though they couldn't blame it all on luis and the other guy at the fugitive and so they were just stuck with arguing the fine points of what their intentions were but it's so confusing factually i may be totally wrong on that so educate me if i am then it's very confusing actually i think i totally agree with you that the whole thing is so massive but in trying to put it in simple little block to see would it happen you have one group people relatives for money and then one of the phone calls ends up going to the smugglers house where pancho is that and that's how they make the contact to exchange the  they screw up a parking lot and one of the undocumented people in the car says that's the first shot they heard from was from a band that was approaching them and there was a taco in the back it was one of the people that was killed coconut hotel and they find six of the people and then they go through fourteen and that's when my client and another individual are arrested and as you say yeah there's nothing where one can say well i wasn't there  the whole thing and that's what they did with the results for which i think was not subject across didn't point to anyone at the defense table instead one of the lawyers did but the judge tells the jury that what the lawyer says is not evidence well  of the charged indictment are that these fellows are in the united states illegally they are running around carrying arms and that in particular for example one of the witnesses testified that people who trial only for what he's charged with not for other bad acts that never been prosecuted or charged or are constitute part of the charges that he's being tried  both of them had firearms at the time the shootout at park boys cell on the evidence part of the core of what the evidence that being the prior arrest was offered to show their knowledge of the fact that they had guns that they were not permitted to you there were a couple of things that concerned me about the crowd the biggest one was it went pretty thirty two days i just couldn't imagine why i probably would go that long and then i would get some of the things coming in like nine eleven even though it doesn't go to an element of the crime it was how mr williams had control over the girls who were the prostitutes working for him in this case the drug use combined with the possession of the  i don't know if i think well you never would be the standard of review only if what they were claiming was the reduction was insufficient i'm not sure that i agree because there were basically the severance motion was on a couple grounds actually because it was saying i want to get redacted satisfactorily to move throughout the severance and i don't see break down the actual statements and the testimony of the agent as to what christie and existed there were only a number of statements that referenced anyone and first of all these were not rejections they were actual verbatim way someone an individual that does not identify anyone it's not actually incriminatory and you know what in the context here i mean this is a close question for me  because under gray it's not enough to say well joe and blank when it's obvious who blank and referring to it seems not too hard to figure out who they are the someone else in this case but i they ruled it was based on the subject the drug use was essential for the subject to the subject of the people that were taken hostage that it made no ruling as far as identification or anything of that