glad at his place to business served a search warrant on that business they came up with nothing they didn't find drugs they didn't find cash they didn't find  only trace amounts of methamphetamine now when i was reviewing the chronology of the vans in preparation for making this argument it occurred to me that sort of stepping back and look taking part of the macro of you know what at minimum can be hard to disappointment or perhaps an embarrassment after sort of weighing in with with floyd and getting him benefits and devoting all kinds of resources to this to their investigation it's important to remember that the court instructed the jury that the charges were only related to two thousand  see in a case like that just the the defendant and alleged admission that he was the manufacturer whether or not if you know he admitted that he did it in august of two thousand and one or beyond a reasonable doubt is where we're at even now the prosecutor's argument improperly sort of shifted try to shift that to well you know who who is the liar and to me that the argument that he if he could never commit perjury because he would have been fired if he didn't know this is no way to look at this has other than prejudicial clash just an error was made and i apologize to the court for that that was my error i would like to before addressing the issues in particular raised in brief i'd like to address which if the jury believes the government's evidence which it appears they did there was a time frame within which the defendant had possession of those barrels earl floyd testified that he received the barrels from stealing were used early in the year two been cases where it was clear it was clear already that there was this contradiction between the friends testimony and the government's evidence and that the improper question really was merely pointing out what was already an initially saying that they were deadlocked on the manufacturing count they had been done with writing at that point for so briefly three hours three hours and it was late in the afternoon on a friday and particularly serious she did not even give them an allen charge at this point she merely instructed them to come back on monday at that point they took a look at some more evidence and alternately we reached a verdict so this case is not just close as the circumstantial there was a strong evidence supporting the defendant's guilt on the charge conduct there was the physical evidence the barrel containing the methamphetamine waste the manufacturing equipment although that wasn't preserved the voice on the tape to tape recordings and one in which he discussed instructed the defendant to dispose of the barrels and wipe all of the fingerprints off of the barrels and another in which he discussed and chaining a precursor chemical for the manufacture of methamphetamine although the informant and certainly no model citizen although his and his testimony should have been and the jury was instructed that it should have been viewed with skepticism on many important points it was corroborated by the tape recording bit of math waste in there that couldn't have led to five in the production of five hundred grams of methamphetamine there was also the defendant and so there was also the cooperators testimony defendant robert williams and again although mr williams had a lot at stake in had a lot and had a lot to gain here his testimony was corroborated in the important ways it was consistent with evidence that he would have no other way of knowing about had the defendant not made those admissions to him i believe that some point the defense raised the factor that mr williams could have known this through reviewing the corroborating williams was the consistency between the evidence that he had and the fact there was the amount of manufacturing that he said the defendant had made it he could make forty five pounds which was consistent with very skinner's analysis says that the amount of meth weighs likely came from forty five pounds of production and that the quitman within the barrels was consistent with the production of forty five pounds team worker mr broom and stressed money that flatly contradicted what the defendant told the jury about the origin of the barrels that his employees had gone to the brother's house and remove the barrels and the cardboard box that was the many things your honor that's correct there are there are many viewed in isolation there are other possible explanations for certain pieces of evidence in this case but that's by nature the nature of a circumstantial case and when you add  convicted somebody would do he is evidence where it was not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty that might be here with carriage of justice as well yes that's correct your honor and i didn't mean to imply that it was an actual innocence standard but even under the court's definition this case isolated areas in this haynes as the district court found don't amount to and it would be more problematic if this really only instance in which the district court had it trying again during cross examination why would that make it more problematic well because i think that would emphasize this portion to the jury and emphasized t jury that it was important that the defendant answer these particular questions is that we are there when a judge kind of gets involved and it does have a stronger impact on the jury yes that that's correct your honor but in this case this was a particularly this was a defendant who was particularly reluctant to answer the questions posed to him so much or i would have wanted to answer the question saying it was l courtroom at the time was aware of the error and in an effort i'm out of time but if i could just and tries the court that our office has taken steps to remedy this in this particular issue has been and address conduct and distribution that witness credibility was paramount here you know when the government tries to excuse the questioning saying well she was just following up on and constant statements that he didn't say exactly what the agent said he said of course there's the that's the only circumstance in which that breed of error could ever occur otherwise it would just be total nonsense and i think the point the judge w