that they will she is question whether or not mr buckingham when he ran to the house picked up his gone and marijuana and put him in the backpack or whether they were in there all along with their fullest coin and now when law enforcement tested the guns and the marijuana pack smith let me let me put it let me let me put you in another train of thought i'm not telling you how to use your time but you've taken five minutes given as to facts and i suspect you may run out of time if you don't get zinged into your argument extremely problematic for him after prior to the trial a standard into play a plea for the state charges to be dropped be a prior consistent statement was made after the time buckingham had a motive you know to a lie or whatever or chronologically incentive to lie to get himself out of trouble and man of course after  that's missteps isn't the issue that he was impeached for having two motives to why one the you didn't want to get the felon in possession charge him self which that motive did exist the day of the arrest but then there were he was also attacked for having the motive to lie to get the because of the plea deal he later obtained and so there is prior statement did fried a bat motive to get this other case dismissed that was part of  issue is when you have to motives and the prior statement postdates one book three days the other and so why shouldn't you if if the defense injects this other motive into the case why shouldn't you be able to side age for what you're talking about where the witness said my aunt had written a letter actually to somebody who turned out later to be  introduced to rebut a specific allegation are quinn's counsel that buckingham was lying because he got a deal that's that's why the state was introduced and it was proper to let the statement in for a couple reasons for one buckingham's present he could have testified on direct examination what they also told him that night and secondly it was also proper under rule eight a one day one b one and finally even if it was error it was it was harmless  as you know randi buckingham given the statement that night of the events in question it was consistent with his trial testimony on redirect we offered that statement and we had a side bar who we discussed this issue with the judge and  really it would hearsay at all but to offer go on redirect the government pointed out three times during the course of the discussion that quinn's counsel attacked but his credibility on the grounds of recent fabrication or mot lie that is specifically when his attorney says buckingham is lying because he is getting a deal and response to that is important no the quints counsel didn't say well no judge he really devoted to rose that night he had other motives wh you know pointed to that defense counsel said basically he was objecting because it was beyond the scope of reader greg was different jackson and then you know you and he go back and forth about this defense counsel ever responded to the eight hundred and one d one offer instead the objects and seemed to gone to beyond the scope of redirect and the nails and then after that even went on is no that's we have sand the same thing well all i'm saying is all out see from defense counsel is an objection based dump the statement being beyond the scope of redirect i don't see where  raised it and if he failed to address it with the court i can only believe that he did it because he thought he would be making an argument it was not aware alright but it certainly was was brought up for him to have a chance over the gravest cause of that following up on that i'm surprised the government's not argue in plain error because this whole issue about the timing of the modem wasn't raised by defense and brought to the attention of the district judge so he could make a determination about this issue when it was this issue presented to the district or in other words i thought he issue of little actually last week as i got to reading this more closely myself i realized that frankly he could have testified about it on direct i certainly could have put him on there to testify to what he told the officers that night now he lot of times you're using the officer who took the statement testified to that adds an extra layer of hearsay into it and we didn't do that in this case we had booking him self just that state and i think that too makes a difference in the normal case that we deal with i would like to address the issue of the heart was there for a moment obviously i don't believe this is there at all but if the court reaches the issue being here i believe this is clearly harmless error if you look at the cases cited the cases where there was turn to be harmful and the verdict was reversed there were multiple errors that would include the riddle case and the forrester case in fact it was the it was the that said the course was if it was stated it expressed no view as to whether any one of the error standing alone would be sufficient to justify our st a harmless analysis all the pens on the facts of each particular trial so focused on this trial the problem i see for you i mean the jury asked for this statement in during deliberations i mean that that shows it was on their money why would they have asked for and it if it did if it didn't make if it wasn't a major factor and understand that but my point my point is the question is what was on the jury's mind we usually it's just gas right because they come out with a verdict you don't know what they were thinking at the gas and that's of that's what we do but here we have a strong clue because they sen question saying when you were in europe but repeat what that statement was he gave right after the you know what after the arrest is what i think is certainly proper for them to consider the statement and the fact that they did does not mean it was necessarily the foremost thing in your minds again they're truth in closing argument in the initial in the opening part of closing argument there was no mention made by the government of the prior consistent statement given by randy buckingham the government only mentioned the after quint's counsel in closing said buckingham was lied to get a deal so we did mention it all in the opening section of closing when quinn's counsel to his closing i'm quoting from page three of three hundred and fifty nine of the record when counsel say in closing argument the government plays great reliance on the prior statements for substantive purposes but did not want to used them to rebut the impact of the alleged mood in our case we have exactly the opposite situation we don't mention it at all until when buckingham's credibility is a get attacked in closing and then we use it only for local purposes so i think it's a program for the jury to ask a question about it to be considering it for those purposes that it was one of the thing i want to go back and get into for a minute while i have the time is that i know you're very familiar with the facts of the case i won't waste time going back through them i do want to point out that even without buckingham's testimony there are a number of facts a year or so that can be used to prove that the guns belong to quinn i mean i will go through them very briefly the backpacks that buckingham his runs out the back door are full of claims belongings there's multiple items in the backpack linking backpacks to quinn including d n a on tooth brush and hair brush boarding pass photographs keys letters address games birth certificate reward cards legal documents aquarians and whims phone bill also in those backpacks in one backpack there are two loaded firearms one in a brown or yellow all below another leaves the marijuana lying on the table in the front room lisa marijuana line in the back bedroom and then also picks up a random shell cartridge and those it in a separate backpack and all this took place in less than fifteen seconds between the time randy booking him ran in the door and her booking hammer screaming in the backyard when that when he was apprehended it just doesn't make good sense that buckingham somehow went through the house and gathered up this contraband and put it in a backpack to run outside with it and yet that's what we want you to do believe there was plenty of evidence to believe that the guns belong to  so the fact that he also picked up another another bunch of a large is before he testified at trial doesn't manage this initial study months so awful and that's had made it on direct it still would have been here's i still would have been a stipend that night out of court to somebody that was not subject to cross examination it sent on  attorneys that we have to take these cases brief them and in this as in this case present oral argument on behalf of your client especially so in this coven environment we particularly grateful