opportunity to hear that because the district court improperly precluded the defense from cross examining the officers with their prior view why convictions as a result mr edwards conviction should be reversed in a new trial should be ordered the convictions went to the officers credibility whether this is analyzed under rule six to wait be under six or not or under the confrontation clause the fact that these officers who are sworn to enforce the law sworn to uphold the law violated that o that goes truthfulness one dictionary definition you know you know you're not arguing that that will mean you are right or you are you know let me put it in the form of a question are you arguing that the mere fact that a basis for impeachment on grounds of credibility where i'm not sure that ever that judges and police officers necessarily take the same oh well let's assume that they do ok then yes the answer would be ok it would be  are their mortal it doesn't prove that at the time they took the oath the line is the question is whether or not since that time they lived up to it but that's not a question of credibility unless you can establish that they had the intent at the time they took the oath standard of enforcing the law for the law they took off office i'm not sure these officers necessarily could have gotten on the force in the first place had they had the prior take but what about somebody who go to divorce or lose somebody you case out there that's address the specific situation maybe it's surprising to you it's not surprising to me that you know you can find a case that the first talk about the arrest in the rest one of the officers actually lying during investigation into these accusations so any any driver who stopped in the officer says have you been drinking and he gives the standard dui offender answer i had two beers when the evidence later shows that that's not true that's fair game for impeachment down the road if that person ever testifies or them and i think it certainly could be here that depend on the that he's clean the law enforcement officers that apply to anybody why i think it could potentially  lied to law enforcement in the course of twelve i think we have seen in the course of the investigation into his own conduct which is certainly what occurred here but you're basically i think making an my question really is why isn't this whole issue of admissibility of what he said to the to the brain officer within the discretion of the trial court under the rules of evidence as to whether he's going to permit be discretionary absolutely ok but again i don't believe the judge in this case in fact exercise that discretion because we were never allowed to get into that ok and i would just note with respect  broadly with law enforcement officers this court has discussed the aura of special reliability that police officers are accorded when they testify well let me just before you move on to that are you saying that your only argument is under six  caruthers twice we're under six always be bass correct well before the confrontation was over in which case is whether this was relevant evidence which i think it absolutely was whether if there was no other legitimate interest whether or not the prejudicial i think we can take i will take judicial notice of the fact that plant a guns are not a figment of people's imagination and therefore why isn't it externally relevant that the one person who picked up the gun in the store room unobserved by anybody else actually lied to law enforcement officers when he was arrested and said he hadn't been drinking not the designers leave the record seems to suggest not they did have a couple of beers but he denied that he'd been drinking why isn't that highly relevant relevant evidence as to his credibility his credibility willingness to tell the truth when he was confronted with the first time or not the jury might might have concluded that this is a plant a gun that's why the prosecutor argued the theory doesn't doesn't have to dispel that notion even from speculation on the part of the jury's what defendants always argue when the government tries to put evidence of their prior credibility before the jury on the government's always argue no i would have to you know it may have been but it goes to his credibility you know we hear we have a  o officers actually has a record of lying to fellow police officers different jurisdiction may be off duty but he lied to them so why shouldn't they be able to crank that into calculus and decide s making a false statement in connection with the d y and there are people out there with right with michael i was very strong feelings about the lies they believe it's a particularly reprehensible crime again just conduct in deserving of a serious punishment and so those sentiments would have a high likelihood of influencing the jury's determination of what happened acting as opposed to what what the credibility of the auspices of the credibility of the defendant is and the other witnesses who testified about what they had seen and there was other evidence that existed in addition to the other and if i could i would but i can't she's not saying that she's simply declaring i don't think these are extraordinary enough to warrant a departure it and that's not enough for us to conclude that she knew that she could  that's why it's the same language though that this court has has dealt with in the cases cited you know you will take a look at this review ok thank you very much appreciate the arguments of both counsel case just argued is submitted will move to the last case on calendar which is united states versus montan