the motor home titled in her name that she was driving it was only when she was confronted with a statement from her son she was she's a passenger her son was driving they separated as they want to do and only when confronted with a statement by her that yeah that's what they were doing and they were transporting this marijuana did she decide to come forward and cooperate if you will with the with the government i point that point out because at the beginning of this investigation she wasn't being truthful with the government at the end of the investigation a couple days later when they put this vehicle in a military cargo plane and transported it all the way to washington state she was going to deliberate to allegedly to my client  driving around up there and never was able to deliver this marijuana to the people that she says she was supposed to take on a just call the whole thing off mr minister press he was arrested a few days later but it doesn't stop there the credibility of this witness you go on and look at six weeks before trial which happened about two years later she mentions to the government for the first time oh by the way i was selling marijuana myself in that area and selling this marijuana that i was supposedly investigation or an appropriate investigation we did what we could over the phone during recesses but we weren't able to we were able to go back to pascoe washington and conduct any sort of information i'm sorry just to ask judge i asked for a mistrial to end obtain more information and the time required i believe to conduct an appropriate investigation the government makes much use during that time of the actions that she supposedly was engaged in back in may of the same year when she was arrested in november and they talk about a number of things that that obtained from my client these are statements that she made these are statements that she told us about there's no evidence other than her testimony that that was the source of the cell phone the reason for the cell phone what am i what are my alternative so i can't have her take the stand and not cross examine her about these things i did what i was able to do under the circumstances because all of this information that she put forth which we s testimony about the first trip was an entire day and the evidence we have of her test her first trip is one of the cell phone to money that she allegedly received from my client and that money if the court will look at the exhibit is my client's name written on the back of a novel open or brochure from a hotel in mexico along with a confirmation number to obtain money the the name  client's name is written on the on the document but she tells us where the money came from where the phone call came from who gave who put the money in in the account and mail the tour there's no independent evidence of that it is her testimony as to how that money was allegedly transferred to her on the first trip she likely says that that first trip had to do with an r v full of marijuana the only evidence we have is is the government's  they allow you to impeach her as someone who has previously engaged in bad acts and is that missing for being too engaging in criminal conduct but that gives you an opportunity to to it to impeach her character  and give you an opportunity to question her i get to i get to impeach her character in cross examine her but what we're what they're doing is putting her prior bad acts of which there is no connection or or no or no validation with regard to the same motorhome that she drove it was the same more than the motor home clearly was purchased by your client and it's titled in her name it's purchased by my client several about nine nine months earlier that it is it is purchased by your client we have titled in it was purchased by my client according to the the witness from washington it is not a title it's not titled in my client's name in this gilliland indicate she only titled the the in prepared fraudulent documents to  including those in my circuit which say the evidence of one person as long as they are appearing in person and are subject to cross examination is a sufficient basis for the admission of this kind of evidence but more than that there is in fact corroboration of various parts of her story first of all the cell phone is not just a matter of her having a cell phone although they're not discussed at length in the trial itself they were discussed in the prosecuting through the period of the charged episode in november when did the government learn that in part in the past with gross apparently only about two weeks before the actual inculpatory about the fact that it was marijuana as opposed to straight cash only wrong about that right yes or i'm in hindsight obviously it is something that could have been developed further as was in fact done based on the idea let's start it was not disclosed right well yes or no because brady contemplates a complete lack of disclosure well for two weeks from the time she knew it until the time council was invaded right but brady contemplates for example a case revel insists that kept hidden but you only find out about it after trial and there are numerous cases from this court saying that even if it's disclosed mean trial as long as reason we have brady institute and forced the government to turn square corners absolutely and just because it hurts the government's case and back to a compelling when the syslog because it does hurt the government's case is the reason that compels its disclosure now what the district court did when it found out many of the new year aided against the nature of the violation but i must tell you as a form of federal prosecutor myself i said i don't find any equivocation here this was a brave there was a lack of disclosure and that's certainly the kind of situation this am i mean i think i take it you're stronger argument is there any brady violation was cured by what the mystery court offered to be done and had done and part of which the defense didn't take advantage of but to argue that it wasn't a violation seems to me just to be outside the line well perhaps it's because i understand there are certain technical elements of a brady violation including whether or not in fact there has been a with the government telling the truth right my understanding and correct me if i'm wrong is that for a brady violation as a fine by the supreme court it's not just a lack of disclosure but in fact where there was a lack of disclosure at a point in time or to a point in time where the defense was not able to effectively use the information and as this court has already been discussing with mr hernandez he was in fact able to learn about it and cross examine in a highly effective way two weeks in advance he could have gone to the district judge and asked to continue the trial who was doing this for economic reasons or son major league drug dealer from the civic northwest bringing in massive amounts of drugs and making a lot of money from it and which would remain a perfectly appropriate subject to cross examination right he was given an opportunity and he did not do during the trial and this court says that's ok if he felt that he needed more he could have come back to the court as he'd been invited to do and say i need more time but in fact when the court asked him what kind of things would you have developed if you'd been told this two weeks ago he basically said there were two things how much she received and what did she do with it and will that be all the prosecutor had to do was the minute she today i look back at the court and we always have hindsight i did try the case but we always have hindsight is maybe we should have done something better it would have been a much different argument to stand before the jury and say you know what this is a lady who is adult  she provides her own dope and then she sells it in the past to washington area versus some lady who was pretty upon by my client to to get you know to make a trip and make some money and when we started when we did our opening statements and when we had our through the case it was basically she was saying these things to say brown skin with somebody that she knew not that she was a a dope dealer that sold the marijuana that she brought in and i think that those are completely different  are very different type arguments i will also tell the court that i did travel to the past the washington area trial i think i think about two to three months prior to do that pond to meet with a client to look at the scene to talk to the people that i could wish for as witnesses go and be the issue of what you find out in trial half way through a trial judge in the years i've been doing this you've asked for you ask a mistrial if you get the information before trial you ask for a continuance but i can't tell the court that i've ever had a significant i've tried cases in other jurisdictions where in a federal court i've asked for a continuance and i've been given a weekend able to do a thing information that i thought we could potentially find those are the those are the issues i have less court has anything else to see any other questions counsel thank you both sides for their argument has just argued will be submitted which is the united states against epis council come forward