point that we've raised except the tick sent to the judges have any questions i'm happy to address any of the points you have several claims on appeal right yes which one would you as your strongest well i'm not sure  i believe there's a number of a very strong claims but most importantly i believe his claim number one sufficiency of the evidence as to the homicide count there is and i say that's the most important obviously if the evidence the other errors which occurred as far as statements that came in and other evidence that came in that was prejudicial the sufficiency of the evidence and the nature of the evidence as the homicide touches on whether any other error was harmless which we submit it was not as to the evidence overall there certainly was in the evidence of the drug conspiracy i don't want to say there's overwhelming evidence but certainly voluminous evidence of involvement in a large scale drug conspiracy video evidence of sales to confidential informants multiple witnesses a long and frankly convoluted tale as to the the third count though the homicide i submit that the evidence was remarkably flimsy now on that count as charged required that the homicide be committed in furtherance of the drug conspiracy charged in count one no both as to mr small's involvement in the homicide itself and as to that element of the charge that it's in furtherance of the drug conspiracy i submit the evidence is insufficient in both of those ways  government presented two witnesses precisely who had anything to say whatsoever about mr small's involvement in the homicide brandon borden otto who was a p c p addict to testify that he came to the john adams testimony was that he was the actual that actually the gunman but that he was paid to do so by jamal smalls who never entered the building but was in the in the vicinity in this car the gun that was used in this shooting of daniel white and in the shooting of blakemore earlier was found in the possession of mr harrison mr harrison was cooperating with the government which by itself is certainly not enough to dismiss his testimony all together  only a strong indication that he has a motive to pin the blame on jamal smalls in order to receive better treatment of self but simply the fact that these two witnesses  drastically different frankly incompatible testimony is that's enough to cast doubt on the sufficiency of mr small's involvement in the homicide period that's only one way in which that count fails also as i noted the as an element that counts requires that the shooting that the homicide was committed in furtherance of the drug conspiracy you know again turning to the testimony of those two witnesses mr borden ato said that there was some dispute that arose between jamal smalls and danielle white in the stairwell but there was no testimony that it involved a drug conspiracy in any way he said that was a dispute about money that daniel to seek vengeance for the homicide of blakemore who jamal smalls according to mr harrison and inaccurately believed was the brother of danielle white so these are two completely different motives neither one of  which in the slightest involves a drug conspiracy no as i said of course there was a vast volume of evidence about a drug conspiracy which all of these individuals supposedly were involved in you know into a layman and it may make sense that a person who is involved in a drug selling organization may carry a firearm and that if a homicide occurs that it's probably in furtherance of that but that's all pure supposition as far as the evidence is actually admitted by the government at trial nothing touches on that element of the crime so with that weakness in that particular count mind just like in particular there's not a lot of time but i want to just point out what i believe the largest errors that occurred point three we talk about the testimony of ashley mintz she was a family member of daniel white this testimony was just extraordinarily prejudicial just really inflammatory you trying to be strong for me precisely it had no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether the defendant was involved in a homicide at all as it's what it certainly did was made the jury hate this defendant and want to convict him if he didn't commit the murder they certainly would have wanted to convict him  hearing that he mocked the family of the deceased including the deceased four year old daughter when he would counter them in a bodega on the day of the funeral i submit there is no basis whatsoever for this to come in it's not probative of anything  and it's highly prejudicial that should have been grounds for a mistrial the evidence that mr mr small supposedly said that he just did fifteen years that was grounds for a mistrial that should have been granted  the prosecution knew this before hand it was ruled inadmissible by the judge the police witness blurted out on the stand that the defendant made the statement that he just got out and did not evidence that was before the jury that he  evidence is but just but the trial judge did acknowledge that did the sheer length of time fifteen years was enough to tell the jury in and of itself that it was a serious crime and that what mattered was that the two principals met in prison became friends later on this conspiracy happened there was no need there was no need to know the precise and you know that the great length of the sentence that he served when it was blurted out those a motion for mistrial that was denied and that was air point five i would also like to direct the court's attention to those a statement the jamal smalls according to the arresting officer said i didn't leave witnesses  not only was that statement not noticed in the voluntary disclosure form but as also it should have been suppressed for the reasons we set out in point four regarding the suppression hearing which i will answer questions on if you if the court wishes but i'd just like to point out the statement i didn't leave witnesses is very different from the statement that was noticed which was you don't have witnesses i don't leave witnesses is essentially i don't leave witnesses it's a confession that i or i didn't leave witnesses or i don't leave witnesses in the con in the context of the case which is that they're talking about a wanted poster for homicide with a picture that looks like mr small s so keeping in mind the insufficiency particular us to the homicide count and i just submit to the court in the event that hypothetically this defendant was facing trial on a single  homicide and all of the evidence was the same as to the homicide there's no way that he could have been convicted on the scant evidence of being involved in the homicide that was presented here so on that basis each and every error which occurred as far as evidence which should not have come in cannot be said to be harmless furthermore the evidence it's insufficient and on that i would simply invite any questions the court has thank you and thank you me please the court good afternoon i'm drew skinner to represent the united states on appeal i represented the united states at the trial below the judgment of the district court should be affirmed first there was more than sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that small ordered donald white's murder in furtherance of the drug trafficking conspiracy corey harrison's testimony that small's admitted he previously shot blakemore and white because there was tension from them selling crack and that white had to get it too in to before trial no judge i think the statement that was provided was you have no witnesses you have nothing that was one of the list of statements provided i'm sorry i didn't answer your question specifically enough that was one of the a list of statements provided before the suppression hearing in this case which happened in about july twenty fifteen before the trial in november twenty fifth at the suppression hearing the officer sergeant blanchard testified that the defendant said to him i don't leave witnesses that's impossible so defense knew about that statement from sergeant lester at the suppression hearing that was in effect  sufficient to comply with his rules sixteen obligation in connection with two points on that first is that technically the statement may not have fallen under rule sixteen because it wasn't in response to police interrogation of course the government would usually provide  is correct of course we would usually provide it our failure to do so here was inadvertent that said though the defendant plainly had that statement was there with counsel with an opportunity to cross the that hearing and then had a lot of time before trial where the standard is did the failure to get the information substantially affect the defendant's trial strategy and here i don't think it could have where he had three four months before trial knowing that statement let me address the testimony of ms smith's which plainly is relevant in this case  shirt that the the woman was wearing it's in the record did not say this person was murdered so the jury was entitled to question how did he know that the person was slaughtered it also displayed mr small's dislike of the victim donald white which made it more likely that he would have wanted to kill him and it demonstrated that he knew who mr white was which is relevant evidence for the jury to consider so given that the value of that evidence surely outweighed any any prejudicial effect of which w the only prejudicial effect is that it was in fact probative of the defendant's guilt let me address the fifteen the fifteen years statement which was inadvertently made by that officer it was not in response to a direct question by the government as in some of the other cases like we're not all the and but gone and figure where the government affirmatively brought in evidence of a defendant's prior conviction that's not the case here it was very brief and  lawyer pointed out it came in the context of the jury already knowing that the defendant was in prison had been convicted including as emphasized by defense counsel below on cross examination of mr harrison  including that it was in a maximum security prison judge i'll give you the citation for that it was in the record at twenty seventy one line twenty two so given all that the the fact that the statement came out about i did fifteen years that mr small said that that is not prejudicial enough in this case that it would require a mistrial especially given all of the other evidence of the defendant's guilt which i should cover because it was mentioned by my colleague first mr harrison's testimony that mr small's ordered paid for provided the gun for the murder dropped mr harrison off picked him up afterwards mr harrison is corroborated on that by many other pieces of evidence it's not just mr borden nada it's the cell site evidence that showed mr harrison going the places he said he went including near the defendant's girlfriend's house when he met with the defendant to discuss the murder it's the phone records that show harrison and small is in phone communication before and after the murder it's the ballistics evidence that shows that the shell casings at the scene of the murder match the shell casings at blakemore shooting which corey harrison testified about which blakemore testified about and which darrelle bland and other cooperate or said he received a confession a jailhouse confession basically from smalls to that and the shell casings match the gun found in harrison's apartment just like harrison said  actually menses testimony about the statement that mr small's made to her afterwards so it's not the case that it's only mr borden ata and it's also not the case that mr borden out of conflicts with mr harrison's testimony the evidence about that incident of a being in the stairwell smoking that came before the murder in this case the same day but before that night and the testimony from this mr barnard i think a fair inference for the government in this case is that mr small's wanted to set up mr white that night to be robbed shot killed he asked mr barnard to help with that a dispute arose again which i think the fair inference from is that it was a drug related dispute that's why