issue in the case was which one of the stories that he gave was true and the district court our counsel defense counsel from asking any questions about how the officer confronted him or even what the officer asked him trying to differentiate between the various statements was almost to establish my virtue of the hearsay objection that judge pepper was sustaining absolutely so when adam boxed i gave his first statement he told police that he had gotten the gun so that he wouldn't do anything with it so concerned about what crimes were types back on didn't necessarily have anything to do with fernandez but perhaps because he got it from a person that was addicted to heroin and was concerned about his his own that the circumstances regarding the text changed such that mr pranab ought to be permitted to introduce extremely extrinsic evidence  decision so simply put the jury just didn't get evidence about what mr polk said the night of his arrest and instead they got kind of a different version of what  actually told police and that version was elicited through improperly leading questions from the government at closing the defense lacked any evidence to argue what statements were made and the motivation behind those statements something that the government capitalized on when it argued that defense counsel's remarks and arguments were based on faulty memory and not what was presented at trial the text messages that were  it's that one of them was going to survive and it wasn't and it wasn't going to be front and the government also capitalized on its ear in its closing when it argued to the jury that the jury didn't even know if these stand that these text messages existed with regards to the harmless error analysis i think that even if we're looking at abuse of discretion even if we're not looking at an overview mr finance still prevails because this  central it critical to this case that he needed to be able to explore it he needed to be able to show the jury who ultimately had to decide what story to believe that mr cox that and the that became an issue when mr cox denied recollection of standing and you even though it has happened three and four days before in her argument about alleged errors that the government made in its closing arguments and i think made reference that was bolstering a witness with some of the government's arguments that there has been rates no issue as to evidence the defense was it was not me who listened to the questions for their truth it seems to me that when a witness has been questioned previously it is standard impeachment  to ask what questions he was asked and how he responded to those questions i don't know where hearsay comes from the hearsay comes from in the form of the question that was asked didn't the officer tell you and then the questions proceeded in that manner nothing in the court's ruling prevented misled mr murray from cross examine the witness  may have claimed or or didn't remember portions of any of those statements they could have begun every question with mr didn't you initially told the police x y and z and mr fox did and that story changed after you were confronted by the police and mr vokes presented to the jury the fact that he was confronted by the sergeant prior to being released he had already posted bond was free to leave and search morris confronted him saying well mr vox we're going to run a check on this gun and protection based upon his work as a heating and air conditioning guy when it's many different buildings in many parts of the city the fire came up between the seats was a forty five licensed under the evidence that it wasn't his or me that he would be and he and his own were and the jury was and a unique position to watch his demeanor throughout the entire dreck in cross examination they got to see how he reacted to questions asked by the government and asked by the defense they got to make a determination as credibility as they're entitled to do so so i'm going to ask you please why weren't mr folks and well i think first when we look at the the text messages the text messages became available to the government not before trial but during trial the jury was selected the government was about to give opening statements and then the government was provided a list of text messages allegedly provided to the defense just before opening statements from a witness that has been tested i think  are you saying they didn't exist i'm not saying that they didn't exist but i don't know it would be the first time that i've seen something on a photocopy of something that wasn't actually what a purported to be that they were  photocopies of screenshots of a cell phone i don't have a chance to look at the to compare any phone records to determine whether there were any communications created i don't know where these came from i didn't have a chance to go through phones i don't know know anything about this but ultimately the court did make that determination the defense in its argument to the court kate it that we are going to use these for cross examination purposes and the the the they had a number of them into the record they were able to process them and mr vokes extensively on the text messages and also the check if i think it's important to know these text messages allegedly took place a few days before the start of the trial i guess over the weekend or so prior morning morning trial because texas just had nothing to do with whatever the relationship or the observations of any of these witnesses were  message or reference to whether they were referenced to some of them were in reference to mr fernet or to a new gentleman that mr or mr moussa he was state so it was even some confusion as to where who these  i don't know if it was amnesia or it was confusion in that it was clear that mr maliki i was dating the defendant but also in a relationship with another gentleman and m revokes was confused as to which text message we were talking about whether they were about the new boyfriend that was out of the city or the boyfriend that was in custody so i  as far as feigning amnesia i don't know if he was given an opportunity to see if they were given an opportunity to cross examine him with the confidence of the sex messages stuffed in a pocket he actually told police his first statement and this didn't come out in trial the car and drive he had in his garage for about a week and even working mechanically on it while he was they don't know what the you are so they can't wait which one of them was true it can't be which ones and you want to believe and i think art the text messages all of the arguments that the government has made to date goes to