and then beyond that i have some trouble even if he's not a federal law enforcement officer with whether you can exclude evidence under rule forty one when it's not a constitutional violation prophecies you know in other words well what what would be the reason why one would interpret the law enforcement officer to exclude this type of situation rule forty one is pretty explicit that what's a federal law enforcement know that's a good question how reason that we're here is because we have we have a specific role that deals with the situation and what life says is we would have a deliberate intentional violation of rules i don't think we have here what i do think we have is is that the government or prong i thought the judge was just sort of in outer space on that issue that the law required that the the legal custodian authorize you know to certify the documents why didn't require that the legal custodian actually be holding you know his physical custody of every single document i mean with prison documents how could that not be delegated well the trial to be other people involved there i guess the problem is honor in this case if you read carefully richard green's sort of cation how we sort of find those documents was an oral proffer but there was no testimony to that your honor i will and i think i would invite the court to review the record but i don't believe there was any testimony to establish that i think there was an oral proper made by the government and then so that brings us to  no indication whatsoever from mr green or anybody else that the person who compiled these records were persons i had had actual knowledge of the data that was on the records i think that's really issue a separate apart from  even if this court is to find some sort of technical violation which will forty one i mean the government contends that this detective was the federal law enforcement officer and that the government did request it because we did review and approve it but if there is a technical are now your honor and i think that you have to determine whether i it's prejudicial and whether or not there was a playground or deliberate disregard in this situation there's no evidence that it was prejudicial there's no evidence that just this search warrant was fundamentally infirmed this was a good search warrant not to make that objection and tell the evidence was moved for admission and the court recognized that was a tactical decision but when he made that's half of the decision to object to the introduction of his hack we then were forced to find an alternate method of seeing these fingerprints because i needed to have fingerprint evidence to tie the defendant who was in custody of the partner questions penitentiary with the defendant was on trial no it is the oldest in this particular case make this tactical decision not to object to late and then not expect us to do some sort of request by the government and another method of finding a way to admit his records and he never objected to he never  jury instructions at the conclusion of the case one it was a very specific jury instruction relating to the oklahoma jury judgments saying that you can't use them for any other purpose and then why wouldn't you  convictions for some reason the court might reject he he had come on we disagreed on some of the interpretations of evidence and i'm not really sure why he thought an individual prior conviction would pro chance to integrate it into their arguments and the judges on the panel may not have been able to read the whole case that just some news clips some of it may be helpful things to see this let me ask you one more question