testimony from an under from an undercover officer in violation of mr chambers constitutional right to call witnesses in his defense undercover officer would testify concerning his observations when he visited my client's legal practice which specialized in  either i'm sorry he wasn't there are just two points ok so number one the government speculated that perhaps he changes procedures in that time period that he started doing something different but the government presented no evidence to this effect and given the importance of the servants i think the prospect of whether or not he changes procedures at some point should have been an issue for the jury that have gone to the weight of the evidence but that should not be exclude that's one and number two on the issue of the fact that he wasn't personally there but he was there were presented by his paralegal and spouse christina chambers and i want to make the point that the government disparaged his entire legal practice that was the core narrative that he sense we practice law by bribe so the fact that he wasn't there but represented his was represented by his paralegal i mean you can't separate his paralegal who is an integral part of his practice standard of review abuse of discretion yes now you have some arguments there but how is this an abuse of discretion well your honor i feel like this is  because this is this is evidence that was key to the government's narrative went straight to the heart of the government's narrative their stance we practiced law by bride and it was key to the government  to our defense that he just ran a normal legal practice them and never servants not really relevant to the charges that he government ever disputed it was a lawyer and they never said he didn't have any legitimate clients didn't  well they didn't express we say that but when you look at the the whole of the representations made by the government the impression that the jury is left with is that now his entire legal practice was all  that i mean because when you when they did this in sioux ways st they made the point that his legal practice was permeated permeated whether with misconduct and with fraud and you can see this in statements throughout the throughout the transcript the government made statements like it's a case about lawyers who pay bribe have to bribe have to bribe that the defendant got special treatment for dozens of clients lawyers we identified minute for years that the this is this is what and the government makes this point as well you don't get to put on every last minute of evidence you can ever scrape up especially if it's really would be suggestive of called good x evidence which is of course not admissible so wouldn't it be fair for the district court again in its discretion to say well you know what you want to put on your wife testify about how you had the best legal practice ever and you just ran around practicing law but the one thing we're not going to do is to say like with a bank robber there was a time he went into a bank and didn't rob a bank so how could he be a bank robber i mean this is the point that the government makes that we can just a lot upon christina chambers but the  issue with relying solely on christina chambers dispels and it's paralegal was that miss chambers being as wife was inherently compromised whereas on the other hand you have a perfectly good witness in this undercover officer whose job it is to it's his job to observe who's unbiased he has no stake in this fight that's why he would be the perfect witness here this is why we should be permitted to put him on and it's the same at the same thing that i thought i guess i'm really not following what what was his observation that was so key that would show that he had never taken a bribe that your client everything what was the observation well i mean i walked in and i did not see a crime being committed no no i mean there i'm not trying to join inference that because he didn't commit a crime in this  he did never commit a crime that's now i'm trying to do one trying to do is show the nature of the legal practice his interaction with with the legal practice now to show that you know the way in which  these are the kinds of things that show that he's wanting just a normal legal practice as opposed to some kind of bribe machine that's described by the government that's why it's important  had or you have bred or you could gotten what you wanted from those guys but it's no answer that we could have we could have relied upon the grace of the federal government to provide us with the witness may please the court my name is paul monthly only i represent the government on appeal and i represented the government at trial john chambers was convicted based on overwhelming and largely documentary indisputable and undisputed evidence evidence of the fact that an undercover officer engaged in an innocuous preliminary consultation with chambers as paralegal after the charge period was properly excluded is irrelevant and prejudicial good act evidence couldn't possibly of affected the outcome in any case i think i would just say that the idea that this related to the heart of the government's case or was a central issue to the case is is really highly divorced from how the proceedings actually unfolded there was really there wasn't this disparagement there wasn't any reference to permeation there was a reference assess a number of bribes but there's really nothing of this undercover consultation even responds to i think that unless the court has any further questions would rest our papers i think know i think when it's really down on something which is which is the government's narrative here the government throughout the course of the trial presented the impression that pretty much every part of john chambers legal practice was bad or there was and identified by by the government for example you know john chambers help with more than one hundred investigations largely and identified the government also argue that changes to fraud is own clients this clients when identified the government made the point that his practice and things that he did in his practice were inherently suspicious they took aim at his website set because in his website he makes the point that  the he makes the point that he knows people pursue license division and this is part of the value of hiring him as an attorney the government makes the point that unlike most private attorney attorneys to spend extensive time in a licensed visions offices unlike most private attorneys and the point is guilt by association so all this put together presents the impression that his practice was simply bribes cian permeated with this is what we were allowed to respond to your honor we were permitted to go back and say no he just wants a normal legal practice that's all we wanted i thank you