five hundred grams of methamphetamine care to was possession with intent on august twenty fourth two thousand and fifteen and count three i know that one was the earlier  two thousand and fourteen possession with intent and count three was possession with intent on august twenty fourth two thousand and fifteen mr della torrey owned a car repair body shop contain within and building that had a nother business contained in it which was a mechanical repair shop and they were they were testing the car more or less he  he had been in the car he was driving the vehicle they were stopped officer holt meyer and the omaha police department stopped them and they noticed some nervousness  of the vehicle at that time it was also disclosed later on that the vehicle was in fact had in fact been in parked in front of remove methamphetamine that he may have had on his person and placed it in the center counsel so we have this method fed to me in a car that mr della torre is the only be an informer moment that the court can look somewhat into the credibility that the jury determined thank you find very few cases where if a witness credibility is reversed at this level simply because of the fact that they've engaged in criminal conduct in the past they i think it's true you'll find very few but that doesn't mean it's not possible mr slava checked also and this was something that was not engaged in a trial on mr slavic check also had twenty nine hundred dollars in his pocket on the day he was arrested so in this particular instance i believe  that that the credibility of mr slava chip throughout his testimony and having changed his testimony over time can be looked at by the court the second the second possession with intent to deliver  there's there's some real incredible testimony in there regard regarding how what he picked up and what went into the car there's also a lot of incredible well h testimony from the beginning was that mr della twenty had never contacted him to go to the go to the place of employment that day he was employed by the other owner and he indicated that the other owner had sent him there he only changed that story after a year or approximately a year and after being offered numerous inducements by the government to change the story  again that took place at the time that mr doyle would pour his house was being searched for drugs pursuant to a search warrant or no i think it was he consented to the search of his house and at that time he he basically had very little opportunity to have contacted anybody to go get drugs out of the house again we have incredible testimony and we have no nexus between mr della tory and the drugs as to count three then asked to count one the conspiracy count that that primarily runs from the testimony of what we would call another incredible witness tammy gall miss gall was the in federal prison at the time of her testimony in this particular case she had cooperating witness for a while but had been kicked out of being a cooperating witness this was because she had resumed taking drugs and failed to contact and even the  agent indicated that you know people who get kicked out of cooperating program are generally considered not to be very credible people she's the only person who testifies basically as to the conspiracy in this case and the conspiracy is alleged not to be involving her it's alleged to be involving mr della tori and his father who is the only person that she ever dealt with face to face according to her she she dealt with a person she called the friend from the north in a texting situation though in order to  drugs if they were in fact was a conspiracy between mr della torn his father to distribute drugs i don't know it's not alleged and i don't know that she is that coconspirator so as far as the conspiracy to distribute five hundred or more grams of methamphetamine only involving basically the testimony of  gall i think it fails on both a level of reaching a five hundred grams and on the level of a conspiracy because a conspiracy is alleged to be only between market still a tory and his father his father is alleged to have dealt with her as a buyer only and so in that particular situation i think that count fails to so we have three counts one where there is no nexus between mr della tori and your drugs except the testimony of incredible witnesses and the third where we have a brought into evidence those text messages are the numbers on those text messages are not tied at all to mr della toward these things are these things europe i'm  connecting and then they're they're all somehow connected by these three incredible witnesses that i raised issues and then effective assistance of counsel it's probably not ripe at this time  because there are some there are some issues that probably have to be developed in there if the court determines that that they are not right but this time  sufficiency of the evidence first in this case the evidence at trial was more than sufficient to demonstrate defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt there was in this case testimony and evidence from three independent cooperating witnesses as well as several law enforcement officers corroborated by other pieces of evidence such as drug ledger a day planner that were items belonging to tammy gall there was a wire that was introduced into evidence worn by ryan slava check and then there are of course the drugs the methamphetamine that was recovered in the case  jury heard from two witnesses that were that got meth methamphetamine directly from the defendant among those witnesses were ryan slava check and tammy gall as mr pindar indicated there was the traffic stop that occurred on august twenty fifth twenty fourteen in which law enforcement recovered two ounces of meth from a center console of a vehicle that was driven by mr slavitt check actually is driven by the defendant mr sla check was the passenger but mr slavitt check had control that vehicle the defendant was present the defendant had an opportunity to place the methamphetamine in the center console that evidence was  after that happened mr slavitt check was indicted federally later cooperated with law enforcement this is over a year later that he goes back wearing a wire at the request of law enforcement to mr dale atory shop on forty first and hamilton street and he wears the wire into the shop that was introduced to the jury there are some it's not the easiest video to watch it's very shaky and the audio is not of the best quality but there are certainly upon close listening one can certainly hear certain admissions by the defendant made but more importantly the what the wire does episode on december nineteenth two thousand and fourteen she was involved in a one and a quarter ounce methamphetamine deal with the defendant and his father defendant's father also named marcus taylor tori was acting as the intermediary and actually physically delivering the math to mr call however ms gall testified and i understood that the methamphetamine came from defendant in this case so both witnesses mr  they both had evidence and testified regarding prior methamphetamine tracked transactions with and involving the defendant the third incident was the july first twenty fifteen  law enforcement action and there was lots of stuff happening on that day it started with a knock and talk at the defendant's residence defendant was on the phone with his brother brother was at the  residence defendant spoke to law enforcement over the phone gave consent to search the home it was later determined nothing is found at the residence however at the very same time that that's going on law enforcement is watching defendant's shop at forty first recover three quarters of a pound of methamphetamine at that time plus a scale inside a bag so mr diaz actually did testify that it was mr dale atory the defendant that called him and some one time to the shop to pick up the item inside as the court i think was inferring the credit credibility determinations here are for the jury and  it's pretty clear that the jury believed the testimony of these three witnesses and furthermore the jury verdict may be based solely on the testimony of coconspirators and cooperating witnesses that's the argument i my argument is that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the defendants motion in limine a and admitting exhibit five which was a tape recorded conversation between the defendant  exhibit seventeen which consisted of photographs of text messages between the defendant and tammy ga and taking first and foremost this is not this evidence was not offered as for a for be evidence  was again offered as direct evidence of the charge crime crimes the exhibit five the tape recorded conversation this was the wire that mr slavitt check war two defendants shop that was reviewed in camera by the judge  it was authentic aided properly and admitted properly the macmillan factors were applied again i'd you can see for yourself in the video that it's not easy to watch it is shaky but it does contain audio  video and in addition mr slavitt checked the court properly instructed the jury not to consider the statements of mr sliwa check and that they were not to be considered as for the truth of the matter asserted so that issue is addressed and properly the judge properly instructed the jury on that issue regarding the text messages those were admitted properly pursuant to rule eight zero one d to as statements of a coconspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy there was a conspiracy here there is plenty of testimony regarding multiple sales of resale quantity of drugs and that is sufficient certainly one of the governor's defense arguments was that the government offered selected text messages and that that was prejudicial to do so and this girl did testify she is available for cross examination the law put the evidence both items of evidence were properly admitted and there was no abuse of discretion in admitting those items of evidence turning to the speedy trial act claim course the defendant must be brought to trial within seventy days of indictment or in this case defendant was indicted in march twenty sixth seen he was arraigned on april sixth twenty sixteen at that time the government moved for detention the detention hearing was held on the twenty first of april all that time was excluded pursuant to the speedy trial act  motions deadline which was granted until may seventeenth two thousand and sixteen in that motion the defendant expressly acknowledges the time would be excluded and it's the government's position that all the time between april twenty sixth twenty sixteen until the trial order was issued in august on august twenty fifth twenty sixteen was properly excluded by the court  on august twenty fifth twenty sixteen the court issued the trial order scheduling the trial for september twenty seventh twenty sixteen and in the ensuing seven days when the speedy trial clock was running there is evidence that the government made inquiries with defendant's counsel regarding their wishes regarding any potential continuance as of trial the government quired with the marshals to find out how quickly they could bring mr gall to testify she was in custody with the bureau of prisons and phoenix marshals advised that it would take a minimum of six weeks to get her here the government filed a motion to continue trial on september first that motion was pending until september sixth when the motion was granted the court excluded that time pursuant to title eighteen section thirty one sixty one h seven a finding that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial so it's my it's our positions my position that the essentially there was eleven days of speed trial time ran that was not otherwise properly excluded by the time we got to the trial in october in addition to that there was another motion filed between the  time between the time the continuance of trial was granted and the trial date the government fight another motion on september fifteen twenty sixteen from motion for conflict hearing and that motion was ruled upon eight days later on september twenty second is excludable as well because the motion is pending and just briefly addressing the final two issues addressing the motion to suppress first the biggest part of this or the most important thing to realise from the motion to suppress is the government never actually used anything at trial or offer any evidence obtained during that search at trial so the notion that the defendant was harm had a couple of arguments one was that the warrant should have stated that or should have specified that there were two separate businesses in this shop but it did it it did actually say that it said  it described the location as an auto repair body shop located within a business advertised as neos auto so the warrant was sufficiently descriptive and secondly as i indicated earlier on july first twenty fifteen as everything's happening at the same time they do the consent search they observe mr diaz go to the shop and leave the shop with the methamphetamine that that they're alleging that the warrant should have contained information that nothing was found in mr dale or tory's residence that also goes nowhere because first and foremost the timing but secondly it's certainly possible that the agent didn't even have the results of the search at here for ineffective assistance of counsel claim and even if the court were to consider ineffective assistance of counsel it would fail under the strickland vs washington test  record speaks for itself there was certainly vigorous cross examination of the government's witnesses the defendant himself testified there was no especially critical testimony that was overlooked by defense counsel or that they failed to act on there was no in it it admissible devastating evidence that was allowed to go before the jury he had two attorneys here that were both actively engaged in his defense  and certainly their performance was not such that he wasn't receiving the counsel guaranteed by the sixth amendment and unless the court has any additional questions for me i'd ask the court to affirm the case regarding the tape recording there were tape recording and video recording and i guess the courts probably seen that it is very very difficult to decipher there are many portions of that are almost inaudible tonal inflections are not able to be drawn from the most part some of some of the  testimony stated he did on two other occasions mr della torrey was trying to get him out of his business on that particular occasion it was a situation where he wanted to defuse where he thought was going to become a violent situation and in that regard he did everything he said anything he could to get mr sliwa checker out of there in regards to tammy gall i don't recall any particular testimony where she in fact testifies that she dealt directly with marcus de la tori the son not the father i don't think there's any incident where she said there was one incident where she said she was present in a car outside while her boyfriend went and talked to allegedly mr della tori jr so i don't presence and providing arguments to the court