the district court why should the district court for further well i think with respect to the math what the attorney wanted to do i don't think he was in done done with his investigation he wanted to go back and do a further analysis on the statistics a discovery phase does in fact require any threshold shall one question if that's true i think what the lawyer wanted to do was to go back to further investigation with respect to the public defender information that he investigation that was part of his argument and then they probably could have or they could have further gotten into the discovery issue that he was also seeking at the same time now we're looking at a consecutive twenty five years in this case a pretty  was kind of a database run where they punched and and nine twenty four scene came up with a couple hundred files and what he advocated is that he wanted to pursue that further and i think that aside from the discoveries or there's also that point but when we're looking at the type of sentence here where the defendant got four hundred ninety four months and we're talking about a consecutive twenty five years in there i think that the court get abused its discretion it's not like we're talking about evidentiary ruling kind of an interesting fact pattern where the parties on the eve of trial pled guilty to two other counts which include an attempted bank robbery and the gun allegation and then move to exclude from evidence as it is that with respect to the rest of the trial and i guess the question is is this evidence relevant once the defendant has basically acquiesced in this versus some kind of a balancing act if the if the evidence was admitted and stipulated to then why was there a need to put this on during the trial well that's the primary first of all first of all you didn't see if you like that it could come in and so that's not an issue whether i think they would have agreed to allow the conviction found they didn't i don't know whether they would've could've or shouldn't but they didn't and it does is it a negative impact on the remainder of the case the parties are willing to agree that they rob a bank that would leave the rest of the conspiracy information to put forward now what why bring in another eleven witnesses bring in all kinds of horrific evidence for something because the government was trying to prove there was a conspiracy between four people to rob at least two banks that's right that they put a still put on which to put on evidence with respect to the conspiracy i think there is in all evidence particularly where you have an admission here you have to do a certain weighting of of the evidence so that even if it was determined that it was relevant to the issue i think you have a what we do have a four zero four b issue i mean look we came in here you had an officer the station coming in and talking about all these missions that the defendants made during the trial you had all kinds of things were really collateral so but the thrust of the case that if you could have been could have been resolved there was a couple of cases that co counsels that made it on a subsequent letter and i'll let her address those points but just part of the transaction and it's not part of the transaction and if everything is is agreed to what's really the point of going forward other than to prejudice the remainder of the piece of well i think i don't know if i like to use the word picking and choosing but i think that there is a certain balancing act that goes in with evidence and you have to weigh it based on on the  well i think they did and i think there was an admission that that's what happened there were plenty of grievance of the other defendants again in these two parties that already admitted i can't remember if they specifically made that offer or not i'm sure they would have been i mean of my doing what shouldn't would have credits the point is they didn't have well we don't have that question the question here is having pled guilty did that somehow magically preclude the government from putting on evidence that they actually committed that robbery they could've perhaps another wanted to limit the evidence that they didn't want it in at all wealth is and that you can tell me otherwise counsel i said i have no recollection whatsoever that they made any offer to stipulate to anything their entire correct and perhaps i'll let co counsel address that because the time is running that it's our position that those two robberies were were really generic that there were specific characteristics in relation to the robberies that would allow that that was an unrelated incident unrelated conviction and of course if the defendant offers to stipulate to a prior conviction or whatever that goes to an element then fine then you're you saying well it's they shouldn't be allowed to put on twenty two witnesses who are only going to keep talking about the same awful things but if you all twenty two are talking about the charge crime either it is a part of the transaction that serves as the basis for the criminal charge or it is necessary in order to permit the prosecutor to present a coherent story to the jury in this case the evidence that issue me proving the identity of his movies bank robbers and and i bring up my sanity in the context of proving the conspiracy charges not just in the context of for a for be evidence so first two reasons for both explaining