responsible for the murder to corroborate a badly damaged cooperate or the government offered in the middle of the trial as are you meant that in a blurry image mr felber can be seen holding the gun and the relevant  government summary way to test its case agent on the st day of trial and it was a narration witness and the witness narrated the video said there are people here this is what they're wearing there's a playground over there but did not say anything about it got the next day the but the government did not trust the jury to make that decision and so it inserted its argument as to what can be seen in the middle of the trial it is a prerequisite to any opinion testimony whether lay argument as to the blurriness in this axe lation what i know what i have to question about that is then it would seem to me that's a proper subject for cross examination because on cross recognized i didn't recognize as a gun this person was on the stand for purposes of like he understood something to be a gun he was not basing that on a police officer as a police officer who was familiar with guns but either way what you really had as a situation where you needed someone a superior vision who had a vision that the rest of us don't have is your honor but because and this was explained to the district court in volume a video surveillance video evidence in this case was enormous and as this panel no doubt aware and prepared for trial you notice things that may be alluded you despite extensive investigation in the past and so once this particular piece of video was focused on  detective fox on his own immediately recognized what he believed to be a fire are in shelters and based on his son miliary but the various component parts of the gun which he explained to the jury just testimony was offered as expert testimony because defense counsel insisted that it be offered as expert testimony and i want to be clear on the waiver we're not suggesting that souter waive the argument that somehow this  but the district couldn't meet it as expert testimony and i think you can be grateful for that my concern is whether we have to clarify garcia any more up for us is there something you're not understanding about the distinction so you and i think the court does not have to clarify that in this case because as you point out as only was offered as expert testimony and we are comfortable that it was adequate time to prepare and prior to his testimony at no point the defense counsel indicate bait needed more time to prepare well that they wanted to hire their own expert to offer a contrary opinion so it's it does not accurately reflect what the testimony was offered for to suggest that he needed to be an expert in fluent video i'm prepared to answer any of the questions that the court may have  getting into the argument about what is you know what can or cannot be seen in your own or you know to be brief about a hot dog or a baseball or a cup of coffee but we're talking about can you see a handgun what's being suggested is just a back and transcript the a was a knowledge of the district court concerned that there would be a mere presence defense as to this murder and so whether or not he's holding a gun in his hand is a central critical factor that's why the government is some h and starts with the images in a way that you could work backwards to reconstruct a clearer picture and that would be very helpful i think for testimony to provide but that's not what was offered what was offered was just was just argument  guns can beast clearly steam so you have a basis just within a trial record to know what a gun looks like and terms of comparison to a time to fire an individual i'm not familiar with a case where someone is trying to identify and individual based on personal experience this is not identifiable just on the face of it so you know you can have you know ration i believe it's in the record of this case i see that individual walking one day individuals face as clear as day are you going to have cases where mug shot is put up next to the video and the jurors can make the decision for themselves i'm not familiar with a case  at the scene of the video to say i think that looks like so and so i suppose maybe if there was testimony that someone so had a beard back then and that's the kind of bigger and so and so had that they don't have now that might be helpful to the jury but that would