to turn his life around were mano who had been working for as as a as a government informant for a long time quite a lot of effort into trying to get the usual frank to get back into the drug business with the intention of of being able to turn him in and prosecuting the case was a little unusual in net mr hilliard actually got to the jury on his entrapment defense the case was very unusual in that the jury was out for four days trying to make up it mind about the entrapment that was really the entrapment was the only contested issue in the case they were out for four days in the returned of had kind of a perfect in which they feel to agree and count one which was a distribution count and they found him guilty on all the other counts and judge sigel made an interesting observation about that we don't know whether his perception was active first of all he said he thought this was a case that could have gone either way he said with a case that could have gone either way he said the government there lost this case and it could a one disk case but he sort of focused on the the first  day i don't know if you know he's been around long time so he sees a lot of juries over the years that he was he was voting that he thought at least that the jury was hung up on that first wasn't trapped the first time he should maybe he thought he was entrapped the second time set at some point they must have been convinced because of the the number of of interest that he was no longer and tracked were going on to where he to my old friend henry for old time's sake and because he kept begging me to do it and he was making fun of me for living with my in my mother's house and he got on me and finally when times got tired i stopped fighting him and i i went along with his box and this was to keep he says i never sold heroin to anybody else i didn't go back into the business we used to do it that was a jury questionnaire apparently the judge thought debts that the jury was was hung up on the point is that one thing could've really could ha do you have any evidence of any of the drug deals for my client fifty anyone beside the government the agent says i don't we were unable to know was there there was no video  or any of such surveillance of my clients selling heroin to anybody you know it's true and the agent says it's correct well lead around in the trial  on occasion where we are good to meet him and we believe he was doing a drug transaction but we weren't able to identify anybody involved noticed he he says we we believe we observed him doing a drug transaction weren't able to identify the who was involved he doesn't say we saw something we didn't know what it was but he recall exactly what is his words worthy he was interpret in some observations that is being made by another agent agent lott no was not present at the time of those observations obviously he was because he was the undercover agent and wouldn't want to him around any any where else when it was looking but there was a surveillance agent in there was some testimony as to just what the surveillance agent saw and that was stipulated that the testimony was well out he went to an address in skokie and i saw i'm sitting in front of the house with a cell phone i'm going from memory here your hours and then a few minutes later i saw him behind same house with his cell phone and then he left the area and that was it there was not nothing about chip i saw somebody approaches him i saw characterizes him big us observations and opinion on the basis of his experience as an agent that what was actually observed was a drug transaction it's not he making a drug deal out of it but when he says well we believe this the implication is it's not just me the surveillance agent and i are who knows we had a little talk he doesn't go so far as to say this but the implication is we certainly agents involved in this case we know what he's up to very very very improper testimony around exactly what he said is elsewhere in the brief that i think it was right there right in that that context around page two eighty four to eighty two somewhere were he said that he wasn't there because he castle on it i don't know how else to put it but with an encoding arm of the government made no reference to this testimony or did they indicate that there was the indian charge drug dealing the government the government very wisely let it go didn't didn't say anything about it they shouldn't just about it they should have expected they should have just about it they should have explained it they didn't do what i said there was no evidence i mean an explanation for that i think he i think he said he was getting it from his ex wife or something like that but the point was he was the point was he was saying and now act back in the business in the government said yes you are yes you are we can tell that's what no i understand you're suggesting he's not in sort of the retail trade of what he did before but but to to to be a supplier to know somebody he's not saying he didn't know people who did drugs he sank but i stayed out of it until hank begged me to do it and i now the truth look the jury could have found him guilty t it please the court good morning my name is meghan stack and i represent the government in this matter you didn't lead us testimony was responses to questions posed on cross and therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defense motions based on that testimony the contested testimony arose during a series of questions asking about the possibility that the defendant had other customers besides the government the defendant wants the court i think to focus on a single question an answer but that unfairly ignores the important context that preceded that exchange and the words really are important here defense counsel began by asking the agent to times about the possibility that other customers existed and he got on helpful answers to those questions still counsel pressed on that asking whether the agent knew of any facts or evidence indicating this possibility of other customers in light of that proceeding discussion about this possibility agent i have no answered simply yes i do and other words yes i do believe there is evidence that the defendant had additional customers counsel proceeded to present saying tell me about that agent leno then cited two pieces of evidence throughout the ensuing exchange first the record of comments that the defendant made throughout the investigation and second this particular surveillance that immediately preceded one of the controlled transactions in this case this testimony did not contradict agent lemnos earlier testimony and again the words are important here agent led no suppose civically said i believe we followed him on occasion where we believed he was doing a transaction he was stating an inference an opinion if you will based on the facts you knew and the case and as your honour's pointed out he immediately conceded some of the limitations of that  he immediately said but we weren't able to identify anybody involved and later on in the exchange when pressed by the founts defense counsel he again conceded we weren't able to identify anything specific or any people involved and one council specifically asked did you see him get out of the car and deliver a package to somebody agent level properly and correctly answered  in light of this record any error that ensued from this testimony was certainly harmless for two reasons first the inference that agent lab no testified about was reasonable in light of the facts he knew at the time and second the government's defense was overall weak the evidence of predisposition in this case was very strong in light of the defendant's record comments and his testimony about inducement was at best incredible if there are no questions the government respectfully