one one three the government must prove each and every elements beyond a reasonable doubt and in this case the proof of f b i see insurance which is required was not met that burden was not met and it can't be just infer or supposed by a justice but but like i said not all banks are f d i c insured and what you have in the case of john ware's in one thousand nine hundred five to first interstate banks where rob two different banks tellers testified as to their respective robberies and what happened in the first one raid bass testified that she was working at the bank on this day and when the question came about is the bank f d i c insured not only was it presented to her in the present tense but her response as well all don't think that's enough and that's not enough either i don't know who they what do they have to they have to bring in a sort of mucky muck from the bank and we want to have a little ring a certificate and say either either the certificate or in other kid as well they would go down the list and say do you know the federal insurance deposit number some people even though we're insured by the federal deposit insurance corporation because we have a number we know that we're insured by the federal deposit insurance corporation because after the bank is robbed we have to strangers we call the f b i because not all banks are insured by the f we that element of this crime has been met i think that would be one thing here you don't even have it doesn't even rise to that level well but certain evidence if it comes in and it's not objected to and you know and i suggest it turns out here these are f d i c bank but i mean obviously you would put evidence before the court if if you know if someone came forward and that that they were not in fact then it wouldn't be possible that he could be convicted of that offense so it's not an issue of factual innocence or something along those lines but the quality of the evidence that kind of sand you know if a person says let's say they said well the teller testified at the time that this yes it was federally insured and there's no objection district court judge put it that way yeah but that would be the same thing i mean if this was in fact an f b i see i think and trial counsel knows that and knows that he can't prove that it wasn't and so when the person says that that  as a stipulation and i think that with all men there's no evidence then there's no doubt no evidence for that but so we're kind of talking you know i mean you have to go with what it is and i mean it seems to me that your best argument would be that the see are is it you know do we say that that precedent and it's controlling or can we look at other things and here i would say it seems to me there are you could argue that there's so much time between th something that was first in the state and i would say that the name in the bank to most girls wouldn't hear didn't thank have signs posted in there she said there were signs posted in there that say this is a federally insured bank that's right over there or something or wasn't that part of the testimony in the trial to one of the walking into a bank would assume that they've seen one hundred times i don't think that rises to that level and i think the timeframe even though it was phrased in the question is your bank federally insured the timeframe isn't even enough because these two witnesses and they were the only witnesses presented to th the case of robbery we call the f b i because it's a federally insured bank i think that with the short timeframe with maybe the name might have been enough but here we don't have any of those three you have two witnesses there are testifying that there is almost assuming one of them even says it all banks are federally insured because of that i think the air presented to the jury was was not harmless but rather fundamental error and his conviction here should be overturned i would almost cases came to us on direct appeal tellers mentioned that it was posted one of the really sense close to the other said it's listed in the bank it's posted so both witnesses said it was posted and even though they said it was the answer to the question about insurance was framed in the present tense now both federal insurance and my position is the federal bureau of investigation and everyone knows that the national law enforcement investigation agency it's not a local agency there were no sheriff's officers or police to testify and they talk about it's not an insurance agency th well let's just see how far we can go and i don't know if six months is good enough for five months or two years or i'm fairly certain that was not the case no one was playing a game here there was a clear mistake but i think was an honest mistake it's one that given all the circumstances as all the case law talks about you know the problem is that it's about every year that i've been on the bench there's at least one somebody fails to prove federal insurance or at least there's an allegation of that and mostly make the same arguments that you do that you know this was an anomaly you know we there's no bad faith it was federally insured and channel generally people asking questions s said look this was a man prosecution you do better in the future and i say yes we are now if we hear it year after year so it's awfully hard to say maybe we should just start creating more bright line rule so that so that people take it seriously they're going to prove this otherwise witness was asked whether or not the bank you do certain requirements because they were federally insured and then the only other evidence were two documents that had apparently stand out of the logos that member f d i c and i think the evidence there is less than we have