united states  not supposed to be on that side of the bell so that they may find their way into issues with respect to confusion of the jury and the government has cited a few cases on that score by consent that reliability is in the four stand up and read a portion of the newspaper to exhibit his alleged i just accept facts i'm just asking you whether you think that was not a case in which reliability informed the pro but in fairness versus prejudice analysis i just want to make sure i understand what law you're drawing here and from the line that in that case it was found not to be probative because the issue of his accent was not that it had no bearing on the identification of the defendant as the  government made the video the government interviewed cuming several times three witnesses three agencies out of her kitchen table interviewed her for an hour and a half each one of those agents could've been called in what's called to testify and could have said actually that's not how she talked to us in that video and that would have been fine but instead the government or the government argued in the court found the introduction of that video would not allow the government to cross examine the rye ability of her fluency  inability to test the extent english proficiency at the time of the two thousand and thirteen interview but i mean that this is the creation of these two exemplars if they're called that aren't entirely different in the thousand and thirteen interview yes ok i mean i mean everybody has a motive and all of that now we're talking about whether it's irrational to exclude it the judge say it was the motive to minimize now there wasn't going to be an ability to going to stand up the government has no prior opportunity to question the defendant to determine whether he has an accent in our case that the government had already questioned her three agents for an hour and a half and they could have gotten on the stand after the video was played and say actually when we talked to her that's how she sounded or that's not how she saw that there was no there was the government was not the prior the opportunity to to probe how well she understood so where's the prejudice well i mean i guess obviously the video is the best evidence of her in that with you know the evan entry sense but just in the kind of common sense best evidence of what she how well she understood english and  time you can use it now if you prefer i'll wait thank you confession but also the testimony of multiple witnesses that she misled the government about whether she was married and who was living with her at the time none of the it alleged errors are errors at all much less today constitute a reason to reverse any of the district court decisions therefore the district court should be affirmed first would you address the video you i'm i'm interested in why would have been so prejudicial to for the government to have it be introduced your opponent has talked about how  agents of the three nations could have testified as to whether the video reflected her proficiency at the time of the confession and there was other testimony about her fluency in english would it really have been something that the government couldn't have managed much like in as diana it would have much been much more difficult for the government to effectively challenge the linked english proficiency shown in the video so just  english that would also go to the cumulative ness of the evidence so the fact that it would then it would have been easy to challenge or when there was already sufficient evidence on the government's side suggests there was already sufficient evidence going to the english professor proficiency on the defendant side as well so it may not have made any prejudice other than the difficulties  accept there was also the danger of misleading the jury that was a similar consideration as diane the district court was concerned that the jury might think that the interview was part of the confession that was being introduced by the government the district court also thought and there is a substantial sentence imposed i don't know that showing the half hour video been so difficult and the other problems seem to be ones that you could manage through appropriate instructions or argue you know in a closing about the weight of the to assign the video but it wasn't just a matter of the thirty minutes your honor it was the fact that showing the entire video would have introduced extraneous issues could have possibly misled or confuse the jury and it just wasn't necessary what there were questions about whether ms callum and her purported husband had gone on vacations together and whether that would that was important it just would have introduced evidence into the trial that wasn't necessary for the jury and what if you didn't ask to have you know any possible harmful statements that you thought were harmful or confusing excise could mean it was a half hour tape and you could have made that application to the judge but you you oppose playing any correct your honor because we thought that the playing the entirety of the video would have been necessary for context and it's not that other parts of the video would have been even more french additional to the government it's that and why why do you think the whole thing had to be played for context because it rather than showing just a three or four minute clip is calm as ability to speak english it would have shown the entire interview and put it put her ability in the larger context the defense could easily have cherry picks just the first three or four minutes but you could work this out i mean you know it's a half hour video so you could have agreed on twenty it's you could have agreed on fifteen minutes that's possible your honor but in the district court's discretion it decided that that wasn't the district court decided that i want to be necessary to play the entire video because of the rule of completeness and it was within the district court's broad discretion to decide that and excluding it wasn't arbitrary or rational is this court we need to find to reverse and in any event none of this distinguishes this case from as diana where the government could have called other witnesses to testify to the defendant's accent or lack there of or and in fact is the voice exemplar was created by the defendant right yes this is a tape created by the government of an interview conducted by the government right yes that's correct so i think there is a difference and i'm missing something that isn't actually a distinction in this case your honor because the question isn't who created the tape or the exemplar but the question is what is the motive of the person appearing either by weiser video in the tape and in both cases the defendant hadn't had a motive to mislead as to as to english proficiency or an accent it doesn't matter who made the tape that matters who appears in the tape and what motives they had at the time and that's not a distinguishing factor between this case and  excluded evidence was minimal if you actually review the videotape it doesn't show an extreme inability to communicate in english in addition to the evidence was cumulative of other evidence already been introduced for example  both of the person who interviewed ms kalama in two thousand and eleven and took the confession and the person who interviewed her in two thousand and thirteen and that was depicted in the video testified that they had to rephrase or speak slower or hesitated  government case was sufficient that even had this been introduced there would have been convicted conviction in any event legitimacy of the marriage that was part of the ultimate question here it seems well the fact that she testified even if she did testify to a fact that wasn't the ultimate issue doesn't necessarily make the testimony inadmissible seven o four explicitly says that as long as her testimony was helpful to the jury it was admissible and open up this wasn't objected to below so this quarter of use only for playing her but as far as her actual testimony it didn't even necessarily encompass the question that was before the jury telling the jury that in her opinion this this application should not have been granted is far from telling the jury that they should convict ms callum a of marriage fraud beyond a reasonable doubt additionally the  application itself was in front of the jury was admitted into evidence and hasn't denied stamp on it so the fact that she testified she would have recommended that it be granted didn't add much of anything in any event and would constitute a reason to reverse here because it just simply wasn't that important evidence this isn't like the cases in which this court has reversed where the objected to testimony refers to the investigation as a whole or the import of the criminality as a whole instead this was only based on his cahill's own review of the documents her own review of the application and petitions and her testimony wasn't referenced in closing the only reference to ms cahill by the government was the fact if there are no other questions thanks do you get reserved two minutes commentary on each item of evidence whether it was a house relative strength or weakness of each item really sort of i don't know how that helps the jury in any in any way to determine whether how these documents flow a normal evaluation of granting the kind of relief that they were submitted in order to secure she can she can point out  are certainly that that was the essence of the fraud was that they submitted these documents in order to get a favorable ruling from the agency she did not recommend it now she was explaining to the jury how she reached that think you can say you didn't understand how it was helpful to the jury and i'm asking you why it wouldn't have been helpful for them to understand why east documents would no viewed favorably in the very process that your clients spouse were trying to secure relief it certainly would be helpful in the sense of reaching the verdict of the government wanted but would it be helpful understanding of the witness's testimony which is was saying i didn't recommend now now that other testimony explains why yeah but but i thought they would come in with better evidence that they didn't