it is clear from everything that transpired at a truck court level of the defendant was the united a fair trial the government in order to prove the conspiracy charge and called one the government relied on for storing the witnesses t was taken from him or sees that the airport at the time of his arrest mr chesterfield out of nowhere testified that they i think they said it was twenty two kilograms of cocaine the government then turns around  difference in the number was what it weighed with the packages i you stand your point yes but i but i think also as officers of the court we have to be cognizant that the jury it's paying attention to what the government you know government's evidence misadjusted see it was the government's key witness in this case the key witness in this case to implicate miss the ha in any way but nonetheless that evidence was key to the government's charge in com or drugs in this very had before it three separate transactions were at mr richardson's direction hall and carried me on the livers cocaine to him in the back of the there was a drug conspiracy but mr hall was not participate if i'm mistaken please because the variance argument i didn't quite follow that was really sound like a sufficiency argument poor poor perhaps but in this instance i think you know i would be hard pressed if i did not point zero in five that whereas the government charges unequivocally a single conspiracy the evidence at trial did not produce such it did not appear because we had different individuals off the record and whatnot and when he came back before the court he indicated that he was corrected by the government i think corrected himself and that deprive the defendant of the right tool effectively cross examine him before the jury came off of the record my client was entitled was like a government report you might have in cross examining office and i think the question was something like did you tell the agent that mr hall had fourteen dealers or additional killings and the answer to that from the jury was no no then there is this examination because you're going to beat him up for st telling the agent that he implicated your client and then he would testify no i was mistaken it was someone else i don't i don't see intentional force that false statement and i really don't see how your prejudiced by that several online inquiry well the thing about it any any time you're anytime your able or talk to point zero got to witness the government witness you know right in front of a jury that carries you know that in this case one that you have raised and that goes to the stipulation the chain of custody you were not trial counsel in my career i was not all right i must admit that in a lot of years of practice and j g this is the st i've seen a party attempt to run away from a stipulation especially a stipulation that was not only entered on the record but the also on the record stipulate to an end fact as judge smith said there was in korea make sure the defendant himself was on board with it and experience has shown it's not unusual for issues of chain of custody even da lab reports to be stipulated to and one could argue  can't i can figure out any prejudice to your client by the stipulation and in fact strategically your predecessor might have had a reason for example one less time or two less times witnesses are talking about the eighteen kilos that were seized from chesterfield at the airport and so the with respect to the stipulation but with respect to some of the questions which you soon to facts not in evidence and about which you complain at this time he chose not to do so with the stipulation that maybe that says something in and of itself that counsel and it started at the very outset of this perceived it started really as i recall with what seemed to be a request from his smith to attorney smith did try to raise the issue again i believe two times and it seems to me from the transcript that judge gomez was becoming a bit frustrated because he felt he had already ruled on the issue and wanted to move on and i think again it's sometimes difficult to really get the tenor if you will the mood the tone of what is happening in a courtroom from smith had i don't want to call them confrontations but certainly some differences of opinion as the propriety of questions specifically as i think were raised during the course of mr young that teased presentation here a series of questions that were passed by smith which seemed to suggest facts that were not in evidence you recall the portion of the record i'm referring ira for i know what you're referring to here on the right with with that in mind and the record it seems to me being fairly clear on that i was i was rather disturbed to see in the government briefs specifically from page twenty five a response to the support polls claim that is that the government was improperly putting evidence before the jury by way of leading questions and yes that's hardly an accurate characterization  nevertheless i'm here to address the these issues and what i would say to that is that their record although messy it is quite clear that the prosecution demonstrated outside the various complaints raised by appellant in this case that richardson was directing a conspiracy to transport drugs from the virgin islands to florida and they were distributed via west palm beach where mr barry lived and orlando where mr hall lived sure and that's all that is all about the structure of the conspiracy and in and of that self inquiry into those areas would not seem to be inappropriate but what about the  gesture that ms samuel saw hundreds of thousands of dollars quote cleaned that whole song and asked her about an accounting machine from my reading i think really believe there was also reference to a spray used to make the place smell a certain way none of that was elicited on direct testimony isn't that actually testimony by a prosecutor not testimony by a witness such that the intervention of the trial judge group ms smith was conducting a cross examination and trying to in peach ms samuels who was there being put forth by the defendant vigorously i don't  initially going to testify but then withdrew their cooperation agreement to testify is that your basis that it was a cool good faith basis for the questions is that is that why you're bringing that point to our  attention what i what i'm trying to say or honor is yes that there was a good faith basis but also that there were there's no indication here that the testimony that was being a listed was being brought in bad faith it may have been an issue of dispute the fact that certain testimony was or certain facts were raised by ms smith on cross and not on direct examination the point there is more to the effect that the testimony that was being allegedly brought and in terms of prejudice to defend let me remind everyone that there was also a question for ms smith intended to suggest to the jury that mr hall was engaged in criminal drug use in ms samuels presence i think the question actually was did you also not see your brother mr hall smoking we know who our they were in the house why been smoking the ever the testimony elicited on direct had been that they were smoking fighting or not testify as to what they had been smoking and so it may be the case that during this cross exam that chain then that the cross examination through an inference i believe the question was improper the court called out ms smith on that question and then asked her defense counsel's input as to the impropriety of that that particular question alone not the additional questions that had been where we find this rather disturbing but let me go to be hind some of that to be fair and i i mean this just because i am concerned  is not only at the outset but exchanges that were evident i believe that that is my reading as well you're on it and in fact to the extent that it one juncture and this followed rejoinder was what i was talking with this is to which you know you don't miss responded well alright we'll take one for you recall that i do recall that you're on seems a bit of an unusual exchange let's put it that way and one that certainly suggested to me some some difficulties between work and gov counsel and that is what it appears on the record and i do think that that contributed to some of the eviden ary issues especially given the repeated demands by judge gomez to speed things along yes there that there were repeated interventions in that regard agent previously about additional kilos of cocaine in the presence of mr hall and then there is this separate proceeding so my st question is can i cannot decipher from the docket how that  ambassadors for my education if you just tell me how to proceed it came about and i have a couple of questions on this area i'm actually not able to answer that question your honor it's unclear to me why there was a separate rule twenty nine hearing held after the original rule twenty nine i didn't see any paper i just saw a date that several days after the trial that you have you can't tell me how that happened trying to you know cognizant of the rules and limiting myself to the record here that there does not seem to be an indication as to why that separate hearing was held granted what i can say i just you know put it going back now to the trial where this occurred and inquiry takes place the witness says i didn't say this to the agent i didn't see anything in the government from the government correcting that  y can you explain why that is your honor i can't i cannot speak to why the trial attorney did not go and correct that statement of what i will say is that the import of keyshawn kerry's testimony regarding  the the activity with mr hall regarding three specific pick ups that he testified to that took place in orlando at the direction of craig richardson and mr kerry specifically testified that on the st occasion there grams of cocaine and upon this is tempting to claim that this was an intentional perjured statement mr kerry had testified that he was doing pickups from two different individuals mr barry and mr hall and the  the rule twenty nine dollars testimony where he says that he was mistaken that was an inaccurate statement and it was mr berry seems to be nothing more than some confusion on keyshawn kerry's part as to which pickup he had been referring to rather than any malicious  or or deliberately perjury a statement that was being made by keyshawn kerry it certainly didn't negate the testimony he'd already provided that he had leased on three occasions had made three pickups for mr hall's residen i know that i can walk through the exact math but it was a function of the average packages that mister mr chesterfield testified he would bring on the trips in question he said it was about ten and then there was a discrepancy or conflicting testimony about eighteen or twenty two dollars on the last trip plus the amounts that mr kerry testified that he picked up it would not be a double count if we took the cat if the theory of the government's case is the source of all drugs that carry retrieve smuggled in by mr chesterfield the idea here is that there was one conspiracy charge whereby craig richardson was directing it appears at least two couriers to bring drugs through the airport in st thomas to florida and that they were distributed either to mr barry in west palm beach or mr hall in orlando but yeah but my understanding from kerry's testimony was he was reported to him that the source got arrested i'm paraphrasing and from that the inference would be the source chesterfield was the reason why kerry couldn't get his drugs from hair from paul or barack that's the inference correct my mistake and you tell me her mr richardson was directing number of participants including hall and home may not have had direct knowledge of what each of those participants were doing but that multiple participants or multiple individuals were true smuggling cocaine through the airport in s thomas and that they were being transported in some way we know at least on one occasion that transportation was done by can the biden and perhaps others at the direction of mr richardson and with the assistance of jamal ha to mr hall's residency the jury could in could conclude either way that the drugs that mr chesterfield brought in worse the civic leader the ones that were collected mr hall's residence or they may be separate there were eleven trips plus this we think probably eleven trips to hundreds and there were i believe there were twelve trips that were testified that was do are you counting them that might be the same my answer my question is are you saying twelve trips and then the one that that was an players that were all being directed by one person craig richardson and in the testimony both from ms biden and from mr kerry the indication was that mr richardson had directed them to the houses and to mr hall's house in particular word that the same person in both instances was coming to pick up pick up drugs for distribution or to collect money so you had various players were involved in this conspiracy there's a question raised by the palin as to whether knowledge had been properly attributed to mr hall and you had the testimony of mr kerry saying that on three different occasions he picked up is that the prosecution demonstrated that mr hall that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that mr hall was aware that he was part of a conspiracy to import drugs from st thomas to get to at least orlando in florida and given that he was aware of the purposes and the ends of the conspiracy it is reasonably foreseeable that quantities of drugs up to the amount that  perfect trial conduct there there was definitely some messiness going on here trials are messy affairs there's no indication in the record that what ms smith was doing in this case was done on purpose or or done issues that as they were occurring i wouldn't i don't think that where you had you know putting these these discrepancies that largely go to the amount of drugs to the side doesn't change the fact that the prosecution proved various elements of a conspiracy and sufficiently proved mr hall's knowledge and on doing a prosecution where this would as judge mckee i believe said seems to be harmless  what grounds can you say that what happened with mr kerry's testimony where he said it wasn't therefore it wasn't i didn't tell the agent about the additional kilos how was that perjury well because it was salt on the on truth for response and apparently the government knew it was untruthful at the time by the government did not come for water on correct direct court before de jury no government took  denying you know my initial request which is still set aside a condition on call one i think i have minimal my client being convicted on this large quantity of drugs which the government  thing before we take a very sure recess for purposes of seeing if we can improve the quality of the audio here i trust these gleacher that you will  convey to your office the concerns expressed by this panel i realized that you were not trial counsel and i also recognizes some of my questions just that some of what occurred at trial may not have been caused by all of the fall of the smith nevertheless the errors that took place in question are patient