was first of the evidence that he was illegal alien is that he tendered in also social security card and a false resident alien card to obtain employment with the cia who would have tested all the documents themselves were a part of it's relevant on the various factors and came across so with respect to his future contributions to his family that's one factory here i stamped this bears directly on his future earning capacity i mean if somebody is an illegal plaintiff did not argue to the jury he was making thirty three thousand dollars a year his life expectancy is fifty hours work life expectancy is forty more years they're forty times forty times thirty three thousand they think they make that argument well now i mean that's that that's not like a typical wage haas case but it's essentially at issue here i mean you know if they don't label that they're playing that way i mean that's exactly what they were seeking they were saying they put in evidence of what he earned in years past and say look you know you learned it didn't the jury have the evidence about what his contributions to his family have been and isn't that what they were asked to determine what would be your contributions to the family have been right and those those contributions were relatively minimal well i mean right but that was based on i mean those casts herniate what the jury considered based on earnings he earned as an illegal alien and the only way to continue making those types of contributions is to continue you know working in violation of federal law and so the jury was entitled to know that i mean if you are not the risk you run for previous year you doubt there's no risk of unfair prejudice here and that's true for a few reasons i mean first of all it's prejudicial this the discovery depositions of parents the family members didn't know what its immigration status was we were asked if they're saying oh you know we're really close we're very close family you know this type of evidence if they didn't even know you know what it's by what authority it was in the country or i think this is additional evidence i mean what if added there can be a million different facts it would like to get in front of the jury how much they didn't know about them but it's curious that this immigration status is the primary well because it also or on other or some cases also say well you have to prove this you know this so something more might have cases and if you know just the bare fact that illegal alien status alone that would be enough to admit the evidence but in conjunction with something more like a work in this plant for a long time that any federal agency or state agency was or intended to investigate status norton these things are also appropriate and  outlined in cases from around the country that any immigration proceedings have ever been is now defended argues that we don't understand things they said that we don't understand what an offer proves and yet the case they cite northern trust says that not going to be any testimony offered whatsoever that they offer proof just that they're making it's all right so when you're trying to prove something that's pretty much within the exclusive knowledge of the other party  strike the exact balance which probably works and they say that even assuming for purposes of argument some extremely minimal relevance the corresponding and undeniably great prejudice greatly iraq and said no you're wrong he wasn't an illegal alien and that is the best evidence that they have and secondly the player says well we could never find a fair trial is too prejudicial but remember the posher of this case with the jury might have found that there was liability despite you stamps but the economic impact well many would have been could have been affected by immigration to liability what i'm saying here is that that that was out of the case that was tried on damages only and the evidence was relevant to the damage so there's no danger of unfair prejudice now i see exactly what i was saying you  it's relevant to the damages and here it's you know and because the probative value is so high there's not a substantial you know the prejudice doesn't substantially outweigh probative value subprogram value is also very high and what's more in this case in particular i mean they open the door to it in trial i mean for example in closing argument plaintiffs counsel said there's no reason to assume that you you know mr garcia would not have continued to support his family everybody knows he's an illegal alien and that's a very good reason why he might not if continue to earn u s wages u s earnings during the relevant time period so they opened the door to it not just once but circle so given that fact in conjunction with the highly value of the evidence shows that it would have been unfair to get the evidence in this case and just from my own point i just want to point out that you know they said we can't prove mr garcia would have been immediately deported that is not the only