goes to the proper violation and with regard to second point that i was going to make respect if you are the one availability of release washington and the admission of the cell phone records and the recent that i brought that to the court's attention was that the government's correct  testimonial records statements they don't come under cropper but this case makes the point that the law is developing here that the supreme court said in crawford it did not set forth exceptions and that would be considered one testimony we've submitted in this case that it should be considered testimonial because of the way that it was used and it was used this way to impeach somebody in the only person who could there's there's a reference or two to twenty three minutes cough the only person who could test that call would have been the person who had a cell phone record and that was for nice washington she was in there i may be true but the cell washington or in any way explain this entry it was an entry made by the witness it was in an intern made by somebody else and these two people received the testimony was they were at the movies the next point is your honor that there was this limitation on the cross examination of detective sample and the question was asked did you know what a throwdown was and this went to the defense position that as to the location the gun that easily could have been placed there under the car there were no prints on the gun that would go to my client mr evans to the officer found the gun explain that well there was testimony that it's it's actually very common for firearms not to have any identifiable fingerprints on  that it had won your honor but the testimony that's in the record shows that because of the way firearms are made in the coatings that are put on them they frequently don't have it or they have limited fingerprints to the print that was on the gun was never identified but it was just one partial print on the entire gun if they run it against the new the officers they did and they were never able to find  honor i didn't understand the question my understanding used to do pretty much they found one that was made by whoever put partial in addition to that i have to the evidence already summarized the two officers were able to identify evans in a photo lineup after the stop and then there was also of course circumstantial question at issue was it was not as a district court correctly held that was not relevant and even if it had been relevant if it didn't prejudice the defendant that the question was not asked in this case there was ample opportunity and defense counsel took advantage of it to cross examine detectives apol the jury had ample opportunity to assess its credibility on related topics such as lying and setting up suspects and other to other topics also texas apollo also answered a question that's remarkably similar to the excluded one which is whether it would be pretty easy for someone to place the gun there without getting on their belly they could have crouched down and put a gun there and is that correct and apology answered i would imagine so very similar to the question that was not permitted and finally on the admission of the cell phone billing record there are two independent independently sufficient bases for admission here one w record itself well rule six twelve actually states that if if a witness uses a writing to refresh memory and then i'm omitting some here but that that you're allowed to have the writing produced to inspect it was the use of the law by defense counsel your honor so he showed her the phone records he asked her about the fact that she'd been refreshing and he showed it to her right your honor and so when the defense counsel does that under rule six twelve that allows the admission of that into evidence but in independently sufficient basis for admitting it was the business records exception for what would be the role of them slow to put the whole thing  course when it's a business record it's not hearsay and this was a business where going in the questions with the relevant right the whole record i sure had a lot of trouble getting business records and when they weren't relevant your honor again the government and whether or not someone could have been cross examined had she been subpoenaed and appeared in court doesn't really affect the relevance which is that i know it doesn't which is that if you have long said that washington was at the movie at this time and this cell phone records cell phone with him that's true she didn't but the cell phone his question and the cell phone records certainly could have been impeached if defense counsel had brought a witness into court to do that but that doesn't affect its relevance to show that it's unlikely or that it's less likely that that washington was at the movie s death yet state oh you think the government is part of this direct case couldn't move the admission of the business record cell phone producing the owner of the phone the two officers that identified him no one could do that at the scene and they had just come off it was that after many hours they were looking for him and he had been the subject of of interest in the special meeting they had when they went on their special operations program ok thank you i felt so for their argument the case  the the next argument on calendar is united states vs walker