i think the first fifth amendment issue is the use of perjured testimony it was the most critical piece of evidence in this case to show how harmful it would have been what if the government could have proven that rule when was arrested with a twenty thousand dollar watch drink directly linked to the last vegas chongqing robbery of eight hundred eighty thousand dollars worth of watchers the perjured testimony released to him there is not one single document we prove from either the garden grove police department or the orange county jail north or south where the wind was taken  they were using this evidence so we we used it in terms of the defense in this particular case that the motion to dismiss through the grand jury developing this type of evidence we did not identify it as perjury we put in the documents showing that it was untrue and when i brought it up for the motion to dismiss the judge that we've already decided that i don't want to hear anything more about that  various things in the case that was primarily an issue that the prosecutor knew because the testimony was that hot damn the witness had told them about this two years previously that they had reviewed the same documents that we had reviewed and they stipulated and used officer at your various report which showed that he did not seize the watch that's how harmful that testimony was and that's why when was guilty the prosecutor solicited testimony on the ultimate issue of the case that there was no evidence that anyone other than who when and problems that is the ultimate issue that is in violation of this court's decision and harbor you know harbor the court reversed and remanded simply because the agents report was put into the jury room so the jury was able to read it hear the damage was even greater the jury was permitted the hear from the witness stand over objection that the  essence of what he did in the final salvation of their case in chief where this arose and the objection is at three eighty four through with three eighty six of the e o are where i made that objection there was hearsay that it was extra record knowledge and he was giving an opinion and that was the basis of the objection it came along with the related objections which we put forth that age nine that not on some cultural basis so that we in fact you're assuming that was what he was testifying to and it makes no sense since his principal witnesses were age not necessarily what he was doing because he later testified that the insight or the best evidence of the case came from the cooperated witnesses which he was able to do that with the eye witnesses who if he believed the wind would not be convicted that sort of testimony did not come from him and that was omitted in his summary and that was clearly evidence that show that someone other than who when committed this robbery i mean you have two  eyewitnesses which were dead on that there was a tall robber with a gun and a short robber with a back room when an on take long with the exact same we prove that neither doctor records in the when their case had to show that the eyewitnesses were dead wrong so it was the witnesses that he kept going back to that he thought the deals with the cooperating witnesses that he said gave him the best information he was opining about their case it was as if he said i believe them trust me you believe them which is bouncing pure and simple right guard case which we cited in the brief that is the problem with the fifth amendment issues in this case included in that are witnesses truong and lou who were given immunity for perjury during trial when the prosecutor got up an opening statement and gave an opening statement about i wanted to tell you that i have three more clerks i've worked very closely with them for a year at this moment i could not tell you who was the t one you think this was some great that france yes because it the eyewitnesses that said they were the same size the government would have used that all the way and that homerun used it all the way through and you  yes the best you can but you know all right go ahead if we start believing the eyewitnesses to the crime let's look at the other folks you have a guy who was paid five thousand dollars for his car he gets a complete walk you got a guy who case the joint went up there twice he got a walk you got two people they got immunity for happens in every caves and with cooperating but in every case we don't have eyewitnesses who are subject to cross examination on two separate occasions who stand by the fact that what they saw was two people standing together and iraq are shorter than representation that the  we raised it in terms of a motion to dismiss and we raised that walk around and when we raised it after his testimony as a motion to dismiss in a continuing motion that went with lew the use of the grand jury testimony which is didn't pound the car that's where the wall came from it did not come from his person what is it my understanding was from the evidence that the officer saw someone stop the vehicle at a traffic stop one of the other officer saw someone put something under the seat that was the passenger not the driver that would ultimately turn out to be mr goodwin and then the officer went under the seat to see what it was he put there when he pulled out that i  answer search if that provides the probable cause for the subsequent arrest that just doesn't work so once the initial seizure is invalid then later seizure of the address book from that is a fruit seat when you know when the when the cop is showing up i mean what is it you know most of us would keep our eye on a cell that he had no reason to believe that there may be something in there that might be of some relevance well to a traffic of the particular bringing these witnesses and i would be crying when and that's in lieu to the grand jury which at the time we were only two months away from trial to take well that's the government's just taken by surprise when they already had in our pocket a grant of immunity for both of these people which they which would indicate they knew they were going to perjure themselves at that time so they had to have your muti there or so that and asked what the statute requires under their own regulations and statutes just i'm just saying what the statute said and they said they'd never talk to these people or interview them or try to get the evidence they couldn't find a grand jury under oath and this was right in the middle of us trying to get mr after three years it was part due process motion we added that to that the grand jury just came up there but at that point we're only two months away from trial we were four years away from the indictment they're still investigating the case now like i said i they please the court good morning my name is james you and i represent the united states in this proceedings the first issue i'd like to address is that of brought up by mr kennedy regarding honda amps testimony there is no indication that the defendant ever objected to arms testimony being perjury at the time of the trial there was a blanket request for a dismissal of the case as a result of multiple claims of prosecutorial misconduct a claim that the grand jury abused which had been truth claims that they'd like to dismiss his testimony but there was never the claim that he had perjured himself which is very different from not telling the truth the claim that we were going to brought out before the jury the whole business about no documentation absolutely it was brought in fact the government stipulated correct the eleven the eleven month period between the time the age receive that address book in the time that you'll quickly looked at it mine is the justification for that search for the search of the wallet yes in this case what we have is in fact the defendant making a very disagree that it had to be based on hearsay or that i was with you but that is exactly the question that was posed to this witness as i indicated the government's exhibit fifty five which was referenced to in closing this question was a compilation of individuals who associated regularly with on tape on some of whom were our witnesses some of whom were known to have participated in criminal and activity with on take on the defense had offered photographs of those individuals to say look these people were involved in crime with the long not as well they reading the record get that's what they were trying to convey and perhaps with a better argument for you it was simply you're just trying to counter it although i would have been more comfortable if you waited for redirect to raise that point well taken  honor but that was that was the reason for asking that question it was in direct response very tailored to the individuals who were brought into the picture by both the defense and the prosecution as as individuals who associated with dawn and were times when you actually pardon me in jail for years and they never could really develop any direct evidence that he was the one isn't that what was happening so the government comes to trial with the case where it stands it insists rather weak and try engaged possibly criminal activity that was what we were for that was what we were looking at the fact that the primary purpose was to further was to continue an investigation of other individuals who we thought might have been involved it was just great deal of  we put on testimony from special agent worth in which after being directed not to contact the agent called him to say hey i'd be willing to plead guilty if you would let one of my particular coast coconspirators go and it was not the defen situations where there can be statements made to law enforcement and i don't think it was on the scene where those statements would be non testimony examples of that were statements made in an emergency sink for purposes of identifying an individual who was potentially harming the have with respect unless the court this court have any other specific questions that i want to point to otherwise i can touch on some areas right i would like to address the claim that there were improper references to race in this case the background of this case was that this particular agent had to interview a number of individuals very cross examination and in the defense case again he actually was accusation or the claim or the implied defense was that because these witnesses were interviewed on multiple occasions and because sometimes their statements vary from one interview to the next they were necessarily  and the defense went so far as to say in some cases making in looking at specific statements that were made by the witnesses and pointing to the fact that well as we indicated in our brief you said you met so once on the state when in fact you had not  there was a misunderstanding in interviews that the agent conducted with respect to certain words that he used because a number of these witnesses are of asian descent and when you encountered them he did in fact run into certain cultural barriers that he had problems with conveying exactly what he meant and then properly recording without misunderstanding what they had said to him and it was in direct response to the defense's claim that oh no no this this one interview differ so so dramatically or differs from this next interview that they necessarily were lined from this one with every interview to the next that's why that question was posed it was posed to address that issue which came up repeatedly because in this case many of the witnesses who the agent interviewed were of asian descent i would point to the claim that there was in permissible generalization about race for the purposes of convicting this particular defendant because he is of asian descent that was not what was done in this case there was absolutely no connection between the statements that were made about the difficulties that this agent encountered when he was interviewing witnesses to that of the defendant because of his race being more likely to commit this particular crime  me i don't disagree that the that it could have been addressed in a different way but because it had also been brought up by the defense on the line in private that difficulties with language for example have been brought said it did but it did go to explain why there were those particular cultural barriers in which the witnesses did not want to speak to law enforcement in which they specifically said that they thought they would lose face if they were to cooperate within their community that they were to cooperate with law enforcement just last thing the whole point of a was that they lied to me they lied to me and i was the one that finally got the truth out of me and everything they told you was the truth that it's just plain you know i have more confronting them with facts until they finally told me the truth which is what you heard on the stand here that's plain and simple invading the jury part of the product it's about pointing out and in fact i'm sorry which point