the district court had previously correctly held that this evidence was inadmissible under federal of evidence for three defense counsel tried to prevent mr angle from answering these questions and when mr inglis finally answered the district court failed to strike from the record as a result all the jury heard was that mr ingelow knew there was some type of drug in the vehicle thus mr inglis conviction should be reversed because the questions should not be asked and the evidence should have been stricken from the intending to offer the evidence for a for b thus there was no hearing subsequent to mr inglis testimony and a good deal of cross examination the district court held that the evidence was inadmissible under forty three after having a small hearing outside of the presence of the jury in which the government counsel was allowed to inquire on cross examination specifically regarding this evidence after all of that had taken place the district court still concluded that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative  ford explorer he was driving marijuana in the ford explorer he was driving on the day that he was arrested yesterday noted that the government subsequent question was whether he knew this is that just export of record page answered specifically i didn't know anything about the marijuana the only drug with which he was charged the government household still not satisfied with that answer said you didn't say that but you knew there were drugs in the vehicle again m in all honesty i didn't know that marijuana was in that car still not satisfied the government asked a third time about any drugs in the car over objection mr angle of finally said yes there's the tricky part now we know they had you don't have to know that the drug you're hearing is the particular drug you turn out to be curing you just have to know that there is a contraband in the car so i mean that's that's that's one and one problem so he's now saying did you know that there were any drugs in the car to which he could have why it was it was i myself that tried the case that question was specific to marijuana but there were there was a another question regarding whether did you know there was any drugs hidden in the tires of the vehicle the question was limited to marijuana because the drugs he had in his pocket was cocaine and entirely different some suggested question didn't have to do with cocaine it had to do with drugs not even hidden in the vehicle that question was also hidden marijuana hidden in the vehicle the government's question was much more broad drugs in the vehicle and came on the heels of two specific denials regarding the marijuana drugs in the vehicle is is more broad than the question of marijuana hidden in a vehicle and after that direct examination i think the m p the important thing here is that after that direct examination and after initial cross examination the so you know let's suppose the question should have should not have been a ask what's that and what's the what's the prejudice because you know i mean they were asking if the city did know that there was marijuana veer the agent testified they had secondary your client said that he knew that there was something yes the only drugs the jury had any knowledge of whatsoever was the drugs with which she was charged the marijuana the explanation that the statements me by mr ingelow and then cut off by the district court well in fact i remembered that i had just a little clearly show that he was discussing he was talking about the cocaine after all he'd been cross examined to know that you know what else was there but the jury doesn't know that right and that's all the jury  honestly twice before and the government counsel didn't want to have that answer and he tried to explain himself twice did said i didn't know about the marijuana i didn't know about the marijuana yes if you said no he would have been clearly protected there would have  extrinsically impeach him with the cocaine evidence he was attempting to answer government counsel's questions in an honest way congressman of the district court's ruling and with that i always served my remaining time as well i think we need to put this whole thing in the context of of the the few pages of transcript that we have here first of all at the conclusion of direct examination defense counsel were was anything hidden in the tires no and then the question if you know if marijuana anywhere in the car then the answer is no then of the so that that the defense of the defense counsel opened the door we submit by bringing up the topic of any drugs at all so that so that then became a legitimate question by the prosecutor secondly is that is that a bust for the  the interruption with the defendant saying what he did the prosecutor would have launched and you can see that in that in the in the transcript the prosecutor was then setting up the next line of questioning which was you knew there was something bad in the car and if you read the few pages of transcript that one just flows into the other so the prosecutor one was taking advantage of defense counsel's question and two was setting up the  easy questions if you had to ask that is did you do you knew something to me you knew something bad was in the car our on direct examination i see the series of questions you had then i thought in three thirty two i do not recall seeing any place the defendant being asked whether there were drugs anywhere in the car is that correct that's that's correct but but still i submit that on cross examination in this kind of a case it's perfectly legitimate to ask i did you know the word drives anywhere else in the car except that everybody knew that the honest answer to that question was yes in that that question referring to the cocaine in the wallet had been excluded by the court just a few moments before w any knowledge of any drugs whatsoever no he did not not a question was not you just told me that question was not asked of him until the prosecutor asked the question don't well let me let me step back when he  i didn't realize i still had that i don't know i'm not talking about cocaine i'm talking about the marijuana well that's critically different because you're trying to argue to us that he said there were no drugs and he said there was no marijuana no that's true but it is as was pointed out to be at the beginning he doesn't have to know it's marijuana but it was marijuana but he says this isn't a case where you know he didn't know what it was it was marijuana and that was what the issue did he know the stuff in the trunk or rather in the tire was there and i'm still trying to figure out what the question posed by the prosecutor didn't expand the inquiry specifically to get to the territory that he wasn't supposed to inquire into again i think you have to look at  prosecutor among other things was said it well it was he was setting up the next line of questioning that you knew something was bad in the car no no no no stop explain to me how this particular question and not only the expansion to any drugs anywhere in the vehicle set that up well because if you recall at the at the at secondary this this defendant voided his bladder and was obviously nervous and the and the end of a he had to know there was something bad in that car there was something in her car but that's the that's the marijuana you've got a good argument you also recall that during the  he was holding it for a friend to go to a party but he didn't he didn't remember it was there so warning his bladder was not a result of cocaine in his wallet exactly so why was the question asked of him expanded for marijuana in the  drugs anywhere in the car because he had not previously testified to and which the prosecutor knew because of the discussion about cocaine was a territory he wasn't supposed to get into if it was intended to get to the cocaine in the wallet well i i respectfully have to disagree that that was that was the thrust of the prosecutor stayed away from mentioning cocaine he legitimately we are entitled to ask if this individual on cross examination if he knew there were drugs i mean he could i mean theoretically the defendant could say why didn't those in the tires well did you know was anywhere else well i think you void your bladder if you didn't think there was anything in the car the answer he gave the first time the question was asked in all honesty i didn't know that marijuana was in that car the next question did you know if there were any drugs in the car that screams out to me an inquiry for a drug other than marijuana well so what legitimately it could because again if the jury was instructed he does not have to know it was marijuana you just have to know there was an illegal controlled substance in the car and whether it was marijuana or heroin in the tires or whether it was methamphetamine the tires if he if the boy in his bladder because he knew there was something bad enough with avoiding the bladder that's another piece of evidence that could persuade the jury it's got nothing whatsoever that i understand to do with that and i can't drugs illegal drugs in that vehicle at the time he crossed the border and the point is he told us that he did not remember that he had the cocaine in the in the wall and so that and whether he remembered that or not that's something the judge told you not to get into i mean just yes that's true but the point is that he is not going to have some visceral reaction because he had cocaine in the end his wallet he's going to have a visceral reaction because because yes something illegal in the car with or we're making the same point here because that to me justifies further questions about marijuana or something in the tires it doesn't justify a question that seems deliberately expanded to when expecting him to to perhaps now fessed up to the fact that he knew that there was there was something in the car and cross examination yet you've already talked about what's in the tires had already said like i didn't know there was marijuana in the tires well you know marijuana was anywhere else if well just a minute there was well there wasn't any marijuana anywhere else and that's the thing there was never any issue about that  my question i'm sorry all right there was no marijuana anyplace else in the car it was only in the tires if the legitimate basis for the line of inquiry w the off chance that he didn't know it was marijuana but might have known it was some kind of illegal contraband then isn't the way to ask that question well did you know that there was any other drugs any other kind of drug in the tires well that that sir that certainly is but but limiting the prosecutor to the tires is i think because i hear i don't agree with that because there's no question here about where the contraband was found i mean there just wasn't it was in the tires that that's true but that's assuming that's assuming that whoever loaded up the car with the marijuana told to defend and that the that the marijuana was in the tires and nowhere else in the car all that this person knew i mean the the other side of the coin is all this person  is that there was marijuana still with drugs somewhere in that car because he was being paid he was being paid or getting a discount on his car to drive that car across ok thank you mr mallock your time has expired you have a few i think what i would appreciate your using your few seconds to explain this question i asked before you didn't answer which is assuming that it was air why in light of all the evidence in the case is it prejudicial entirely just believe everything he testifies to he told a ridiculous story contradicted himself three different times about how he was what he was doing coming across the border and his reaction from the second he was stocked clearly show that he was aware that he was doing something massively illegal nobody cares about a bag in the wallet which he has come across the border one hundred times probably knew he was scared  they had he would find out he had something massively illegal in light of all of that evidence why does the cross examination well why can we reasonably conclude that cross examination is going to affect the outcome of that case that cross examination and listed an admission from mr ingelow so one contested element of the offense did you know there were drugs in the vehicle yes the only drugs that the jury heard anything about ourselves we would have weighed any objection to the entry of the evidence at all evidence that we've already thought and taken the position in the supreme court case law that says we waive the issue by putting it in on direct it's in my brief that by admitting the evidence defense counsel can't then