the denial of your motion the other day was based on a representation that the parties heads with the time to five minutes a day and please change that to five minutes but you need to understand that i'm not one among the few things that he probably them brain a small bag of marijuana containing enough for two joints that sounds like pretty full cooperation better at least as of that time he was a user leaving you like you well how long  history of arrests for possession of controlled substances in addition to the defendant's statements it wanted to find that even there was sufficient corroboration there were just sufficient evidence regarding the elements of the offense and here there was a complete argument are you that the that the statement that he had used for a long time on the part of the ambiguity is that it could have meant that he used it for a long time that day you're not making that argument ar he does he say that he was a daily user yes and that he used for a long time so i mean you know one if you just took the second statement by itself there's a lot of the ambiguity and one possible meaning is i used drugs for a long time today right but how do you square that with the other statement that he had knowledge just that he was a daily use absolute that it could be interpreted either in two ways again has just mentioned and in fact i think before closing arguments the judge instructed the so i understand you know why you would be attacking with the nine twenty two cheek conviction but for sentencing purposes even if that conviction is set aside i think it seemed to me and three guns are then found at the scene afterwards can't could the jury reason this fellow's highly unlikely to go to a premeditated highway shoot without a gun that someone saw him and he was not carrying a gun or you simply saying that none of the witnesses pointed to the perception figure as having a gun but was so testified that they shot him and he didn't have a gun  right but we don't machine the recession there are seventy three shots fired and all three of the guns were fired her so i think your case necessarily presumes that one of the three guys was using faced with evidence of a gunfight in at the tail end of the gunfight three of the participants are in one vehicle in your set least one gun in that vehicle so what if two of those  individuals in the vehicle become incapacitated in some way why couldn't a reasonable jury and for that the remaining person had would just pick up the gun and use it in self defense or otherwise no other words why can't they heavily henges on the assumption that someone could hear from the firing that it must be automatic and then the dilution window of opportunity post acquisition of the notice for your client to flee and disconnect semiautomatic from an automatic the sound of one firing in is a semiautomatic not qualified as a machine gun no show whatever so no record is there that would allow the jury to say that  at the jury could now or found that he heard the sounds and you seem to be conceding in response to judge parents question that if he did hear the sound then a jury could find that he knew it was a machine about that question about whether the shots that were heard fired might not have been a machine gun you haven't preserved any argument on that i'm i don't i'm i don't think i did you gunshots one possibility is that the victim had a glock or something like that that had nineteen single shot rapid fire capability and that the other two do this well so that's fifty something shots that could have been fired in pretty rapid succession and that somebody might have mistaken that for a machine gun that's all i'm suggesting syria any argument along those lines in general that is that you're making that spend preserved and that you're on fire crackers i mean it's not necessarily sometimes firecrackers when they're all tied together and they sound very similar to grab it a gunshot brothers and so on and ultimately who was on the steering wheel and i was six years and a cigarette that was sitting outside of tangle getting out of the car as well as another person here two people coming out of the car running in getting in to the red colored jee bit if i show up it's hard to withdraw once the gun is visible if i've been on the scene because there's a risk of more gun violence if i withdraw at that moment but yes so and then you're taking the right thing to do it down point it is abandon these people who've he's with who's got a machine gun the rosen passage that touch other the danger of leaving attribute the four dollars just from the media recognition all of the sudden there's a gun in the midst of this deal seems to apply just the stronger here i would think it's a pretty big risk if you suddenly turn tail of the machine gun would be trained on you so is that right a machine gun because they're illegal that's correct so then we have this incident and they drive and they flee and what do we do we have to see a scenario where they leave what do they do when they get out of a car t claim that the drug confession was not corroborated and i'm particularly interested in whether you agree that each of the essential facts of the confession do need to be here that's what the government is arguing so you're saying independent corroboration other than the looking at the confession itself is not a crime well i'm saying there is some independent corroboration required because if you look at it similar direct correlation that's probably long term usage of marijuana right according to the government i have a view as to whether that piece separately needs to be corroborated or not you know i don't think so whole as cooperated i understand that argument right it's an important legal argument the government's making to us yes for it to be true we might have to reject the view of other circuits the door to accept that legal argument because they  even though the essential piece of the statement that concerns duration does not have evidence but as strong for cooperated that is to go myself as you write is the legal basis for taking that position because some precedent seems to suggest every essential found duration being one given us an element of this offense has to be separately corroborated it's not enough but other pieces of the statement were if we thought the essential facts language and some of the other precedents meant we actually have to have corroborating evidence not just of role court of the particular piece concerning to ration court what evidence is there in the government's a view that out no you just say and present i think the question is logically given why we have this rule we're concerned about certain things we're concerned about someone it may take something they didn't do with concerned about officers falsifying convention which here we don't have a  one so we require some corroboration i think the question to you is just as a matter of logic if we can corroborate that the major components of the most incompetent component the most heinous component to the crime war in fact all corroborate asking the person out there tell us the problem is that there is never any evidence to support what the person is saying and so they are painting a hole in federal jurisdiction based on these i have missions that the person has been using marijuana for a certain period of time  particularly cheerio in this case and i think it's clear that the more it would be required thank you