to me that unless we're going to say that project wasn't telling the truth which it was you know it's possible violence or kind of a tough call for her to may we're left with if the government committed a variety of offenses the government prosecutor made herself a witness to credibility the government also vouched by implication for the credibility of the government fense counsel to make an objection on pain of being reviewed for playing  and that sounds like you're saying if the judge makes a really really really bad mystery then you then there's then we don't review for blame here even though there's no objection well i guess my because the and i would be happy to address that in further detail i realize i'm not answering your question with an absolute yes or no but i do think there are certain circumstances that should take a case out of rule fifty two then when you're not sure where to do you ask the judge and camera works of i do and the judge told them what to do and they did what the judge said and and you know i think that the concept of invited her people came back into the courtroom what i would correct then you on that is that the prosecutor never adopted the defense's assessment or our explanation of what happened in fact if you look at discussed off the record after which counsel for defendant went on the record to make an objection and that actually is the same that happened with the jury instructions that conference took place in camera in the judge had wanted to challenge the practice on appeal this would have been a very different appeal so once you set aside the factual and now assess you don't get to play never review because there was actually no objection in that case the judge gave us the instruction that directly prohibited the missing witness and friends and so that's the response instruction which of course the defense would not have had an opportunity to object to because it was prevail here because the government would still prevail here for two reasons one the response was not prejudicial of justice so if we're going to rely on her you should also follow the prejudiced an there certainly is now a lot in not comparable context that would be analogous to preserving an objection to a white plain error of you the prosecutor saying this judge is incorrect particularly given that the prosecutor proposed but what happens then there is no case law saying that a prosecutor commits plain misconduct by defying them by following it rather than defying the judge's clear direct and so that's why i think this does take this out of three i have some difficulty now speaking only for myself of course with understanding how to count three survivors because of the entry that was made with respect to the care chair accurately reflected what happens cash and cashier's check out there was no place to put on that document as i understand it why was happening or anything like that so you know there are plenty of crimes that flow from this activity but i have difficulty seeing that there a different context than a cashier's check and so the financial reality of a cashier's check i think must play into the analysis of those other cases that you refer to don't involve that they involve things such as a loan where it doesn't matter to the bank who's you know who's finances and back something and so forth so they are you aware of any case involving a cashier's check y beat entry is in question found their way to the books and reports because the defendants the machinery in motion which require the entries to be made and that not alone was the false and tree theory that supported the convictions in that case except in that case the entries did not reflect the true relationship between the bank and the officers of the bank among other things that isn't the case  of ten thousand dollars and i go in and i ask for a cashier's check for a one thousand dollars i actually have the money that goes to them that you're not doesn't matter that i intend to give them to a drug dealer doesn't matter proceeds somehow were you know gotten or the recipient of that cashier's check is somebody who want not have it but that doesn't seem to meet the requirement of the brought the money into the room that day and that's why i think to respond to judge coleman's question of what could have done differently the answer is i'm sorry are all judges still there yes we are you from us i'm sure we can hear you ok well come perry on i think the answer to judge coleman's question then is that what you should have done differently is not arranged description and it was an excuse me i thought it was undisputed that there was no place in the entry or the form for that and three where you could even list you know who it was for or who supplied the funds but it seems to me that when there is an account with sufficient funds in it and the cashier's check is drawn on that what happened was manufactured an engineer had to create a record that wouldn't reveal the true nature of the transaction and i really do think that that dates all the way back to darby because it's the supreme court pointed out in darby the deposit of counterfeit money that was then entered into the books as cash could be prosecuted as a false entry except in that this case involves actual non counterfeit money also evidence that they were made and instantly because she was trying to provide comfort to the account holder who appeared uncomfortable lastly i point out that the jury deliberated for eight hours in what was a very very simple case that al couldn't have committed misconduct because the judge approved of the misconduct and i think that if if that's the ruling that ruling basically even eliminates plain error in other words you'd be taking what is a forfeited error arguably or a way to maybe should be reviewed for harmless error anyway and to the realm of waiver at the minimum this case has to be reviewed for clean air and the prosecution's conduct was plain regardless whether it was