conspiracy except for what's what's on the recordings of this truck can we reconcile your argument with what the panel described him that's to be against price on the direct appeal hearing the panel use the words i'm trying to remember might not nuancing mountain of evidence but they describe the evidence against price and and are in a school over as being direct appeal at these quotes i'm giving you a war hero if you're saying this i'm going to split it up there's no other evidence that talks about my client so whether he's his regular people they get to calling me and saying it ain't right it ain't like the supplier knew the customers a lovely next letter dealer and that he was trying to make a good relationship because it was in something that was occurring over over a container and none of that stuff at all we have come in and came in any other way about drugs that have nothing do with p c p assuming we find prejudice how do we reconcile i guess the merits as far as deficient performance given the sta stocks it is that that distinction is accurate yonder in terms of how cloudy it is or not i think that it's clear that that that they've been standing target that we target here used in a rape case and that kind of williams i don't think i can read williams the same way you do because the actual holding of the case is appellants contend that any use of information from unlawful seventy seventy three wire taps produced a flaw in the and therefore the many complain even if their own voices were not heard or their own premises were not involved that argument has rejected been rejected by numerous courts we agree that an accused is unable to attack in this direct or indirect fashion in those wiretaps that it cannot challenge correct my interest area that is that you're talking about is suing waters after the first one which is different here there was an order and then there are several so i don't disagree that is distinguishable case i just don't think it supports your unless we're going to read it in a way that it means absolutely nothing it disappears from the statute it talks about people who were there directly in this when we check every one of those boxes except in his voice being on the recording his name is they used his evidence and his name to get the affidavit the first place targeted whose own land line is targeted whose own truck is targeted but who is not the party to the conversation would come in as person against whom it was directed so here is a then i appreciate you have a different argument as to another group you also like to read but the government's reading doesn't make the statute decorate phrase irrelevant well i it i believe the way this court is handled it you know these decisions for me back and i don't understand what your side of williams to it looking at closely as well which the government when they made their alderman argument the footnote which are mentioned below sea addressed that issue against and we don't know what that means we don't know where the target is the person whose phone it is the person whose property it is a for whether means which is the government's argument or is what you mean but the screen doesn't have any holding with respect to that question i've submitted the best and most reasonable interpretation of directed at would include mr price and mr glover under these facts given all the information that in other words have addressed this issue or squarely other just reports  our own in terms of divisions of formants this court's precedents in hampton and its progeny could be more clear when a lay witness provides interpretations or opinions to the jury without identifying his or her he had this institutional knowledge of the entire investigation and having listened to all of the intercepted conversations in this case that proffer basis was insufficient below the district court would not entertain that i disagree on her because at that point the district court is saying i don't like this testimony i don't want to agent bevington to be a mouthpiece for the government and i need trial counsel to object line by line on that basis our position your honor is that any time agent beddington provided an opinion or an interpretation of a word phrase or an entire series of conversations without identifying the objective basis or that has the money ye case for three distinct reasons one the dominant role agent beddington played throughout the trial to the lack of overwhelming physical evidence against either of alan and three the fact that he strip away the recorded conversations wiretap fall and then having agent bevington summarize this case those conversations in a conclusion or a fashion especially boiling it down to the ultimate issue in this case you know on  what is perhaps the most egregious instance of hampton air asia the think the government plays a series of phone calls where suggs and glover talk about getting together and they use terms like pocket book or brawn and after these five or six conversations the government asks agent bevington simply well what's going on there it's at that point agent bevington summarizes what is the entire issue of this case of trial and says well what was going on suggs sole mr glover a quantity of p c p mr glover resold that to another customer well actually two customers one of the customers had complaints about the quality and the other one that estab s the prejudice in of itself it doesn't take but a little bit of poison to to ruin the drinking water in the entire well asian benton's dominant rol is one reason this court can be satisfied that both opponents were prejudice in this case but in williams this court sets up a distinction between cases where hansen there are hers and the defendant is also facing facing overwhelming physical evidence vs another case where the defendant is not and the ball or the keyed portion of the evidence against  that defendant is the recording conversations as interpreted by bevington for both price and glover they fall on that latter category you know in sobs obviously the court was presented with a evidence was still sufficient then i guess it would have to have excluded that it's testimony about that comes that was not a conversation on the truck bug and i don't think it was excluded because of asian bevington interpretation which sets up the distinction minor child's bedroom there's also some vials and p c p found in the basement you know as we stated in our moving papers you know beyond that w found in the home nothing is nothing that goes to proving the actual conspiracy itself of anything we have and it's found in the home proves goes to prove an entirely different crime altogether that  and i thought did he do that since a trial was sent there was a conspiracy but there wasn't evidence that that your client joined that conspiracy disagree wholeheartedly the son seven insists is is absolutely relevant evidence in determining whether or not clover and price for members of the conspiracy what the calls as a general matter and show looking at them in their entirety is you have suds who is distributing massive massive p c p he's having repeated calls with both these defendants and others that the show that he's supplying something to them and they're supplying something to customers fellow said that he was poll and during one conversation explain to the jury that the the wiretap proved that they but after they got this call they sent two guys out to do agents out to surveil the meeting and that and then he explains that they called off the surveillance because t information that informs the conspiracy theorists and there's also so that's why he was called repeatedly with respect to deficiency under bevington issue hampton was decided after these defendants counsel guaranteed by the sixth amendment at least none of us certainly an appeal by not relying on hampton and with respect to the question and this question of the district court telling some significant time explaining how she didn't like the way the government was trying these cases having babington or an agent testify about all of the coal and as she noted in her district court opinion i can't remember whether this inside or in this case  that you elicit or and you have to make sure that you there are some stated bases and but that's not what she said when she's directing what she says line by line she's directing it to defense counsel  not to the government she's not only government i agree but i think i think it's not crystal clear but i think what she was saying was after discussion how she didn't want the government to try the case in this manner by listening so much in testimony i think she was saying to defense counsel you will go line by line because at some point i'm going to put an end to all of these opinions or at some point or if there's an opinion where they don't state a basis because she's discussed this notion of how can you say hair dryer means peace be with you and then she said i'll just have to hear the testimony but i think what she's saying to defense counsel is well go line by line now with respect to the end island hampton type objection but with respect to the amount oh opinions that are elicited i think at the end of the day doesn't matter for this court which way it reads that i think the transcript is a little confusing but that's the government's reading of that transcript i don't think she said she first rejected the objection on island grounds and then kind of backtracked and what she was saying i think she are you saying that then to raise really weren't that many opinions most of the opinions babington either stated his reasoning on the record or it's quite plain and implicit from the record why he should that he and there are only two opinions that the district court pointed out where he didn't say anything one of them was this activation eighty seven and that was a conversation between sobs and parker and it was a listen and by suggs counsel were such counsel says they say they're going to get together tomorrow how do you know that i'm getting together for gambling purposes and someone it's activation to forty eight which counsel referred to him in his argument and there it was discussion that there were a series of calls over three days where they kept discussing how su provide something what he was going to provide to changing it was sister sister magazine or is there a national or yet information information and ultimately the final call is this extended discussion  in the final call there's an extended discussion about women and their defense counsel cross examined extensively to establish i think six or seven points as we say you know as we outline our brief why this conversation could have been about women and the district court found that the minutes and that's because at that point it made more sense to cross examine and then move to strike the opinion because the opinion had been the jury understood what is basis was and all the flaws in the opinion and that was made very clear for the jury so with respect to that that's the only other call where it where does the standard base that this is not absolutely in the record as we showed in our proof or implicit from the discussion and in my training to be a public defender way back many moons ago one of the things we had was evidence blocking one no one was like basic to being a criminal defense lawyer that you first try to block the government's evidence that's going to be in call but tory if that doesn't work then you figure out how to mitigate it on cross examination or  whatever i mean here there wasn't even in objection in coming to the bench and saying before use this opinion we'd like to know what he's going to say and what his basis is so that you're not put in a position of having the jury hear it first and then try to figure out how you're one of the unring the bell put the toothpaste back in the tube whatever move to strike it  single time there's something that's potentially objectionable in here where the opinion was either to be so obvious from the language itself or from the calls that preceded it for example again you had that the jury heard three or four to this opinion it was a clear it was just a clear loser and councils not deficient who are failing to do object brazen objection it's going to be an obvious loser and it's moving on to the truck bug issue just briefly as i think the big strange indicated williams does not stand for the proposition of defendants who are more in alanson situation clearly have standing to under title three rock is in fact suggests the very opposite and so it can't possibly be the case the council is deficient in failing to assert standing with respect to is as to how we're supposed to interpret the statute mean aren't we required to look at the the language of the twenty five ten eleven for  person and just interpret that language i mean what does records have to do with this greatness has to do with our argument is that courts should be interpreting twenty five ten eleven at all that's not what what the court should do on appeal from a twenty to fifty five this is a collateral attack and so the court shouldn't decide the merits in here where the merits are so unclear and the question is whether counsel is deficient the answer is counsel couldn't possibly have been deficient because the barents you're saying the merits are unclear because of records rock and so if you want to pronounce it that makes a question of what relevance records really has to us when the motion to suppress where the supreme court has said that the twenty five ten eleven standing is to be considered is consistent with fourth amendment principles given that it  ought to be read this is the fourth amendment principle which is you need to establish your own privacy interest that they did it can't be that council was deficient in failing to assert suppress it by asserting conversation of prices had been intercepted from the truck and it was a conversation where he was just standing outside of the truck talking in the conversation that he has standing on the street next to a truck yes under the fourth amendment yes he was picked up his privacy interest was invaded so he has and under your scenario under the fourth amendment just because they happened to pick up his conversation he was intercepted yes so someone standing next to him who he's talking to but never others who were they don't have any privacy interest in the conversation because files had residue in them they were in a gym bag somewhere in the basement where he was sleeping and his phone calls is where he wanted one for me and one for doc really made him look like a user rather then a  generally so in twenty five twenty which authorizes recovery of civil damages congress said that the person could sue and receive civil damages s person whose oral or electronic communications is intercepted in violation of this chapter so they made it very clear that civil damages would be limited to someone whose communications were intercepted so they knew how to do that why didn't they do the same thing then twenty five eighteen the motion to suppress provision because i don't think they're trying to just limit it to people whose communications are intercepted we think they're also trying to include as it read already people people whose homes have been their directed means that the government if so then why doesn't why didn't congress use the grief person in twenty five eighteen for  in the order or the application in such other parties to the intercepted communications as the judge may determine in his discretion that's in the interests of justice but they could've just as easily said you know what happens when a wiretap is authorized my impact different people different ways i don't think undermines the government's view of what it meant in twenty five ten eleven thank you your honor for the extra time very briefly i wanted to address the court's issue about the conversation between suggs and miss joy it's our understanding that that conversation was not interpreted that was pretty clear from the conversation itself and the next day a search warrant was executed at the home where twenty two point three gallons of p c p was terms of deficient performance of the government equates ha  if there's nothing in the record to suggest that that opinion was not based on information provided to the jury and i think hampton clearly says if the witness does not provide an objective basis to the jury that opinion