fact that had the defense been able to cross examine troil about his agreement to testify in the united states precious mcgriff case and to serve his sentence estate sentence in federal is that the reason the judge found that the harmless just a trim a nation of the appellate division was an error was because he concluded that it was relevant to whether  for his incarceration he knew only a new defendant right when i use that term the defense knew that the that turmoil was talking to the u s attorneys about the mcgriff case they knew that and they knew that one of the things that he asked for was that he be allowed to serve his sentence study here in new jersey sentence all without paul in federal custody that the jury should have the opportunity to know that one of the things that came out at the remains your honor was that there was no agreement that was one of the issues was there an agreement there was no going on here expectoration that he would get a special deal with the federal government here at the at the hearing your honor the assistant u s attorney testified she made clear that she was the one she was the one that because circumstances arising in her federal case wanted to have an agreement with trial he never asked for an agreement he never asked for a green he never asked for immunity and that was her when he asked to be in the federal prison yes  was really in effect a matter of life and death was for him it was yes it right yes it was and that's that's another reason why we believe it was harmless a movie where is he serving his he's serving his sentence in a federal prison in the witness new jersey prison he would die yes and he went to federal prison he had a pretty good chance of surviving yes and and order to save his life he was saying anything that he thought would help not only the feds the new jersey prosecutors because they could help him get the deal he wanted that's not what was testified to at the hearing why not but in you know in a lot of these cases where you're dealing with special deals with prisoners it's not always what is in black and white agreement what is expected is it is what is behind the weak well your honor i respectfully the jury knew in this case in this case that the federal immunity which they call which really was immunity because it was agreement trial could have faced and it was set out absolutely on the record by the by the defense counsel best defense counsel he could have faced had he been convicted of the charges a life sentence for the murder sixty three years without parole and extended turn on any of the many felonies that he was convicted of which included kidnapping an armed robbery which was another life term sixty three years without paul plus given the fact that there were two victims in this case he could have faced another one hundred years so the jury that convicted defendant and knew that toro had made a deal but saved him from two life terms plus one hundred years and in research and for that he got thirty years all without parole so the jury that convicted him new the trial had got a tremendous  agree on it but if the if the entire argument is that the jury should have known that he was not going to get that he was not going to be prosecuted first federal offense then they already knew that he had because of the deal that was out there for the jury to consider he had already reduced his possibility of two life terms plus one hundred years to thirty years with nothing i mean what's the big difference between two life terms and three years when your theory until the law i mean i think i think that the fact that you might be able to to get out when you're in your sixty's i suppose to knowing you're going to die in prison is pretty good i think that's a pretty pretty good inducement and that's what the jury know is the way that the sentence  really affect the right to confrontation not on it's not that it's the fact that one of the things that was argued and what judge debra voice found was that the jury i believe that that  sweet deal but didn't know how sweet it was because it was only thirty and thirty and they didn't know that he was facing a life term if he was convicted on federal charges which by the way he had not yet make agreement but the counter to that is they already knew how sweet at both the hearing and before was that the reason you want to serve in his sentence in federal custody was because he was afraid of two people and one of those people was the defendant so how does that help the defendant to let the jury know you're going to serve you want to serve your sentence in federal prison yes right he wants or if you spend your sentence in federal prison because i'm afraid if two people run was on trial for the death of a new york and the defendant realistically people who serv complained about defendant zero in the process he had said that trial had caught i'm sorry trail had said that defendant had called his mother and told to his mother to tell him not to testify so that's not that's not something that came later that was something that was apparent to him from th i think one of the cases i found your honor it said that you should give due consideration to we were offered the reasons the appellate division found it heartless what were the reasons that the politician gave having looked at the entire gave various reasons for why it was harmless it talked about the overwhelming evidence of defendants present the d n a the use of the caravan the fact that his wallet his keys were found in me in the caravan the keys down there were to the navigator which is what defendant used so you look at all the other evidence and the fact that the jury knew a lot about trial he was  he was in some ways i think a difficult witness for the defense because he was what he was he never pretended to be at all and balanced by what he did he never pretended to be remorseful he had a long record he the jury that the first thing he did from when he got out of that car was try to make it they are they knew he was inconsistent they knew all of that and yet that other evidence as well not only could to end their put him as a interval part of this  obligation you have to prove to us beyond a reasonable doubt we're going to and here are the five factors that that van arsdale tells us to look at they look at all five factors and to a great extent again judge debra boies agree with him except for the first degree murder count because he believes it was relevant to a finding of who was the shooter and under new jersey law as we set forth it is irrelevant the jury had they knew that he could be convicted as a somehow disagree with you on the confrontation issue we can still find that the jury properly convicted him of felony murder sir correct oh yes you're right and that's why one of the things because judge because judge  throughout his opinion said there was absolutely no he had no issue with you television's determinations on the centauri a case because there was overwhelming evidence that defendant was involved in the case that he was in the house but isn't isn't felony murder relying on the testimony of sure oh oh it's rely on the testimony of the trial and the testimony and the other inferences that were involved in the case it's also true your honor that even though mary johnson could not identify she's the surviving victim even though she couldn't identify a defendant she gave a description of him which was similar she could test of she could identify trial because trail i see said i don't marriage after they ran out to me they ran out of the house two people around the house into a van that had that had its lights off which took off which meant that there were three people involved so we know there were two people in the vacate the first degree murder charge and that way that would measure at the felony murder convictions and that's one that is also one of the things that we're asking the court to do if it finds that this was harmful error we would ask that we be given the opportunity to either vacate the first degree murder charge about to ask him about the fact that he had this deal to serve his jersey street sentence in a federal institution major turned out that what he was really seeking was the witness security program the second thing was that the prince was not allowed to question to read about his cooperation with federal authorities in we can infer from the group prosecution and it turned out that in and and his credibility was attacked in that regard if he was a guy who like a deal to get his sentence down and that was presented to the jury so isn't more evidence of that  and you have agreed with us that they look at the proper factors you don't agree with the conclusion they came but if they came to a reasonable conclusion the fact that i might come to a different conclusion under ed were is irrelevant is not well cooperation with the authorities in fact they are the only limitation we're talking about is with federal authorities on an agreement they get had not yet been reached as to the remainder of cross examination and that van arsdale factor that is the extent of cross examination that was permitted here there was extensive cross examination what wasn't there about his credibility his cooperation with the state authorities the reduction in his sentence other factors also include the strength of the government's case which which we've touched on the importance of this evidence to the government's case and and this this particular evidence that what was withheld thank you very much up microphone is i'm sorry just two points with the first two minutes and i'll bet only to answer with respect to the mac ten there was testimony from mary johnson as well that the person who was not terrelle had and ten also i think it's important to know that in terms of the knowing purpose for homicide it cannot be you say it made a difference to who was the shooter again your honor it doesn't matter who the shooter is if the jury finds that the they were in they were an accomplice or a coconspirator the jury found defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit armed robbery as well finding therefore that he knew that there were going to be weapons and the house so it's hard to say that he's not guilty or at least knew that it could be part of felony murder because the jury found that he went in that he was part of a conspiracy not just robbery armed robbery so that's a reason why we also believe that the felony murder convictions are not impacted by judge debra royce finding of a lack of cross examination of trial in