people who were charged in the indictment and for whatever reason were cooperating to get their own sentence lower and made statements basically against the defendant and estimated the amounts of drugs that they you know they bought from him and talked about his dealings one of those witnesses was a kevin wipes and during the course of his direct testimony with the government he said he knew the defendant by his nickname of good nuts and i think was at that point to right after that the defensive ject it because he knew what was possibly coming next they knew that that he had  well that came later there's a defense objection and they said we haven't said anything and he said well no i was just i had of myself and then they went back into open court and then he immediately blurted out almost immediately and then the judge at the judge stopped immediately and there was this big discussion at the bench about you know the first day they asked for a mistrial that was denied but there was a discussion at the bench basically about what to do in the jury instruction and the government didn't want to take a recess to don't want to highlight it and then the judge in the government basically were mistaken and said well he really didn't say who would not kill him he says there's a lot of pronouns and so he really didn't specifically point out your client is the one that committed the murder and the defense defendant's counsel said well ok i don't think he knew exactly and then went back to give a curative instruction and went back into the courtroom a few minutes later the judge stopped it again because apparently the court room deputy i'm not sure the government because i wasn't there apparently they gave the transfer for that portion of the transcript the judge showed the judge he was wrong and he actually did say who had not committed this murder again there was a request for a mistrial because that's highly prejudicial and apparently there were some tapes that were played for the jury that indicated that during the course of mr hugh bures drug trafficking there was some violence not murder but there bylines and that in combination with the statement he had to get the defense argued was prejudicial and requested a mistrial that was completely denied the nothing was ever said more than the jury in the case just proceeded on that's the first wrong when he made the curate of the well we made the turn of instruction he was relying on misinformation because he thought that there was never a direct statement that who had not committed this murder one fact there was but it was based on this or anything in the record that that the witness was instructed that not to say anything about this given the fact that defense counsel anticipated the problem and made of objection even before the statement was made was or is or anything a record  prior to testifying and they assured the court when they went back in after the creative instruction was given that he would not say this again but i don't think there was a recess where they talked to the government and cleared that up as that's i was it was the was the one that was buying drugs and from the defendant she said she was with him damon schultz was with him one time when he bought these drugs and then she testified that her boyfriend damon stole a lot of drugs and he got all these drugs from dependent and so that just increased the drug quantity put on the defendant when in fact when her first statement that was on a videotape when she was first interviewed by the police  she said that his main damon's main suppliers were two individuals named taco and big toe and when asked about that on cross examination the defendant asked one or two suppliers not the defendant but these two people or day mr supplier she denied that also she did not testify i don't believe on direct or i mean i'm sorry she did not tell the officers in her videotaped statement that she had gone with damon after the government rested he had the video temporaries or is in the record it's not it's not and i don't know why he didn't have the videotape at the time i have no idea why he didn't use it then but after the government rested he requested to poor to be recalled and he wanted to again cross examine her on just these two issues and play a portion of her videotaped statement where she gave a statement prior directly contradictory to her trial testimony he said it was about three minutes at the most was the government didn't object to court we didn't allow him to do it he said he had ample time to do it and that he could use a summary or he used a summary but the bottom line is he thought he said you got to ask you the same questions based on your summary that's true he did but she denied it in the tape would show that that's what she said were in her drek testimony she denied ever making that statement so in this case the videotape statement was the best evidence of what her credibility is basically what it is and what she's testifying to through events that occurred that are historical there's nothing backing up in there's no drugs they could do this the drugs we bought that day her credibility is extremely important and the government had no objection it is want to make sure that there was time during the blunt recess that she could watch the videotape and refresh or recollection which to the not an organ that way but the government that the court denied it said he had plenty of time or moving candidly i am unaware of anybody ever talking to mitch weiss specifically about you shouldn't say that because i have no recollection of that ever being said by mr weiss before he said it in trial in a non response to a question or in a response that was number sponsor to the question i asked with respect to mr well a key trial counsel's objection initial objection the now the the question also from the court from this court was about the jury where the jury was and so that the scenario with vince is that i'm questioning mr weiss about how he knows because he doesn't know good night as travis he knows him is good he knows that individual he can pick him up a line up but he only knows in his hood and it wasn't until the indictment came out that he knew some hearsay and there while there is some object some hearsay exceptions for background and for the din of the in those kinds of things and conspiracy this stuff and while that technique was probably during the conspiracy i could also understand why somebody would be objecting and saying you know if you're listening and then of course in continuing to try to get that it did occasion i get this statement that i wasn't prepared for or to speak i recognize that  he knew about the statement which he never claimed in the record that he knew about the state he did not file a motion in limine i'm not candidly judges i'm not really sure if that's hit on him or not i think it's reasonable for the defense to assume that we were going to listen that information that he knew about it i don't as i stand here and as i've written this appeal when and when the trial is going on never remember this ever being information where i'm not using as a defense i'm just saying news so anyway i get the initial objection the judge overrules that we then go back and i think it's the next question or maybe the second question and then the judge judge case object regular recess and we came back in the recess judge case prompted came out and said i need to explain something the record is that i've gone back and listen to the record and read the record and judge case has i think  witnesses and while miss hunt is correct that this was a historic of the spirit case there was actually more than just folks coming in and talking about their activity in their knowledge we did a search warrant mr  barr's house we did recover guns and and money counters and drug paraphernalia there the significant money counters is that we found three of them in the case all at different locations number more business of operating the same brand there were drugs recovered from it would require a mistrial if which is as important as a very drastic measure and so that's that's the the gist of of our response to that issue with respect to mr edmunds candidly two things i guess the first would be the fact that mr well he did have the video he did not have a transcript of the video candidly this was  continuing to come in during the trial was that he didn't like the the way that the government had provided the discovery to he didn't like the fact that the government given a video but not a transcript we're in an off day she getting pretty if we had one prepared he would  been entitle to we had to have a trainer or he had it he was clearly aware of it he had multiple opportunities there's i think eight pages in the transcript of his cross examination of this witness not only that but he talked about these exact issues and so they're to say that again that he was somehow prejudiced i don't believe there was pretty slim but what do you say to the respond to the argument that but she well i i guess my point judge is that the way that it the way that the record remains in the way that it felt at the time was that she while she denied the comments of the questions of the lawyer  felt like a courtroom in the record reads this way the lawyer clearly was talking about things that were on the video and candidly the reason i think that is no prejudice because i got to believe that the jury felt the same way that everybody else in the  that it appears that this witness is denying something she said before because she had earlier in direct testimony said some things and then he questioned her about it and she admitted that she had testified either incorrectly or had testified differently or given a statement differently so she so while she may have technically or she may have actually denied that one little thing it was of such a character that it appeared that he was talking about something that you know i've got proof of this right here and you're still denying so the impact was the same is my point but under the rules of evidence he should have been a lot of present should i do you have a higher i q i think he had the right to present it at the time that she was on the stand i do not agree that he had a right to recall her to redo something that you've already done or had an opportunity that's my position and that's where i think the where the wall should be and where i think the case will indicate i don't dispute the time it occurred when we did she was  originally understand that he had a right to do to use the big he did but he chose not to that's a choice he made he had to be i don't want to get too much into the weeds but if you have a video that shows or prior inconsistent statements you confront the witness with that ask the witness about it you even need to recall the witness to get the video and evidence i think he could have just put it in to have a i think judge i can't judge i don't know the answer but what i do know is in that courtroom on that day he would have been able to put that video in or play the video right then to challenge her but he chose not to do it i don't know why and to do it later it wasn't because he didn't have the video it was very clear  to for my purposes to make this point is that she that the other evidence in the case was overwhelming that your bar had supplied shorts and that was the point that while he was trying to make it trial was and then in return the creative destruction was given at that point and they returned to trial then the next bench conference when they talked about the judge called it basically on his own motion because he somehow got the transcript or whatever and realized they made a mistake that bench conference ended at page for six to six so it was about twelve pages later which i don't think would be twenty eight minutes on the a b not that long that up the second arguments the government argued a they were opposed to recall you didn't have the right to read well they greeted the time they had no problem with him being recalled so these changes position today and what he wanted to put in and i misspoke it was a minute and thirty seconds of tape wasn't very long and he just wanted to put in good on cross examination she denied saying damon shields had t or suppliers taco and bedo that's a page sixty seven she also insisted she told law enforcement during her interview that damon got his mepham defendant that's page sixty seven and she admitted she failed to tell law enforcement during her interview that she went with damon to get meth one doc that's on page sixty eight those are destry statements that basically her videotape would contradict and that's why he wanted to put it in and apparently it was a very short portion of the videotape as to why he waited until the end of the case and not it had to time that she testified i can't answer that question but the government at the time said we don't object to this judge it was the judge that basically w