by a drug organization and they had to know about the drugs in the vehicle because that was the only way the drug organization could work under witherspoon these arguments constituted valid chain because they conveyed the impression that the prosecutor had information about mr compas knew and yes that was not presented to the jury and gave the personal assurance and power and prestige of the government behind those statements to support on in the way home this court held that testimony regarding the mo just means somebody got him to do the right thing that doesn't mean it was and major group work is a chemise again i mean one of the problems is that you're sort of reading into this whole background of what goes on other cases but if you were a ny jury you just heard those words why would you think that there was in a major structural on account high no sure if it's not just that the prosecutor used the word doesn't doesn't pretend that he's doing this i'm self you saying it is know anything about it so by anybody's theory somebody else is responsible for the for the drugs how is this any different here guy saying there's an organization responsible i'm a do i don't know about it they're hiding it there i don't see how that speaks to the guilt or innocence of your client at all it's claiming third party culpability simply by the very highest claiming third party  very everybody saying the third parties culpable but i think the big distinction is that mr compass knew you as was saying two other individuals who had sold him the car had set him up and that was the third party culpability that he was referring to while the prosecutor was saying the third party culpability was actually a drug organization and under fire for working with those two people and somebody else is doing it the issue the jury has to decide is whether your client's doing it and i'm not sure how the reference to organization speaks to that because i think th when trial when they use when the jury especially in the area here is a drug organization they think of the cards how and the prosecutor plainly was stating that he was aware of the drugs in the car because of his membership in this drug organization and the role that he was playing within it at various points during closing rebuttal closing she specifically stated that there are some specific highly trained people at a prearranged location that are going to be removing these drugs from the vehicle i'm that is  significant amount of drugs within a number of compartments and it is not a fair inference that somebody who knows what they're doing with the tires is going to be taking the drugs out of the compartments there was actually testimony b trial that you could simply remove the tires off the car slice them open and open the compartments and so to say that specific highly trained individuals and as the fifth prearranged location were going to be doing that was taking it into into impermissible structure argument and to come back to where that quote what i think that the record at two fifty three to two fifty four and the exact point was you have to get to a specific prearranged place where trained people can get these narcotics out where they can get to the people who are going to distribute them to the customer that is going to pay three hundred thirty thousand dollars that it's going to make its way back to the person who owns the drugs who spent much evidence in the record cost there was evidence in the record that this is like a business and there was testimony that this was like a christmas that it's a very different thing to say that marijuana is a commodity and it's like a bit has to then say that mr compos was a part of a drug organization this recruited and paid by that organization there was simply no evidence presented of any of those things and how the government tried to present that testimony it likely would have been considered and it missed the ball and that's likely why it that motions in limine a hearing they represented that they would not offer such testimony and when special agents when i when he was testifying as to value started getting in spot line of bringing up those sorts of things there was a structure objection by the defense the the judge instructed the proper prosecutor to ask another question and the testimony kind of went in a different direction when it started coming up again that the judge said i'm i am going to sustain this move in addition to the problems with closing argument there was also the issue with the testimony of breast butler although the government and the defense was able to why dear mr butler before the court accepted that testimony the really did say that the motions in limine a hearing that she was prepared to accept the testimony without even hearing what the opinions were going to be and what the basis of those opinions were which i did hear she she actually did not until the testimony actually came out and so testified in another case he must eat it qualified to testify in this case but i'm not sure that any of the district judges are really going through a reliability analysis on this testimony and i think there's been other cases that have been before this court i know one trip on my colleagues that had disposition but nobody's engaging in this reliability analysis of the methods that he's using and so while the white gear of mr butler did present just basically his qualifications it didn't say what the what the bases for his opinions were and he gave very specific opinions and testimony and there was no testimony of what tests were done for that what he was basing those opinions on he very specific miles per hour that these effects would be occurring had he said that described without driving the vehicle to what the law enforcement officer who did drive the vehicle described there was a fair amount of corroboration there how does that affect your analysis and i think that i think that it does affect it a little bit but i think that what was more i think what was the really persuasive part during the government's closing argument was the argument that these tires would have just blown out completely that mr compost would have been stranded at the side of the road would needed to request you know service roadside assistance and that was a really persuasive argument that that someone would have had to know about the drugs in the car so that they wouldn't call law enforcement that went way beyond the scope of what officer blanchett testif without any basis in the record what was really was really a problem in terms of what tests were performed what he was basing his opinions on so to say that there was going to be an extremely loud warning noise that would have been a parent to anyone that was even a passenger in a car that the car would literally be bouncing down the road and then the tires would blow out officer blanch i didn't testify to any of those things and there was nothing back that mr butler testified to about how he was coming to those opinions just other than saying he essentially changed tires in the past a butler i don't mechanics and so when you look at it at it at the down bear standard this couldn't possibly have met that standard because the district court just simply wasn't aware of what what he was these opinions on and so they couldn't possibly made a reliability terminations and so not only did she not go through the factors but there just simply wasn't enough evidence before the district court for her to of analyze those factors and so i think it's pretty clear that put forth was that officer hernandez was permitted to testify that mr compost looked defeated and looked like he had been caught which was extremely prejudicial to have a law enforcement officer on the stand testifying telling the jury that he thought that mr compas looked like he had been caught right in your time thank you thank you and  for the united states this case is about whether or not the government could argue in rebuttal or in closing that an appellant was quote unquote recruited or that a drug organization quote unquote own the marijuana that was pellets car this court's president has said that the government's counsel can make reasonable inferences from the evidence in the record and may respond to arguments made by defense counsel in this case the government made the types of arguments that alan is complaining of because they made the argument that he was a no win courier return that they raised for the first time the term that defense that is a term of art that's used in structure evidence i think the best way argument in this case that defense counsel is not objected to below is not objection to here is that the government started their closing arguments noting that importation of marijuana include involves quote unquote the drug trafficking business and where marijuana is a commodity and it's governed by the supply of the principles of supply and demand those are the types of statements a government started their closing argument with and defense counsel is not arguing about and this is the same it's the fence argu arguing about now are are just degrees of separation from those statements that are maybe different from you know mom and pop operation and the wal mart of the drug industry what's the basis for saying it was also i don't think the term l surely made inferences from the evidence in the record evidence in the record is that drugs is it's like a business that the pricing and movement is like a business of drugs the marijuana in this case had a valuable problem i think is that where in that's a possibility but the word organization has a meaning you know in common parlance throughout you know every day life and there's no there's no pill to that that type of specialized sandiego centric knowledge on the terms drug in fact i looked at what the dictionary defines organization is and one of the definitions was a business and that's exactly the type of evidence that we see in this case it can ask you a question that related what is your best authority your best case for your position that arguments that current crackers we're going to zation don't give large amounts of drugs worth a lot of money to people who don't know what they're carrying  is not prohibited as she is not within the ambit of struck her which we have no evidence of in the government so they were going to introduce evidence of were drug career profile kind of evidence which we didn't have an issue are first of all we've never made the argument the government never made the argument below that drug trafficking organizations do not trust large quantities of narcotics to two couriers argument made by defen in the shop every day was there any evidence of that frankly your honor i think that that that one sentence is probably the closest to the line but i don't think it does cross that line there was no direct evidence of people recruited every day but i think the government was trying that a gentleman named where oh an adult gentleman named tony we're the ones that put the drugs in this car and that they had the ability to follow the senate through the port of entry find that that raises the specter of an organization we were just we were just following in this case and respect to the same about people record every day i think the court did a great job in that was with that respect even though there was objection raise and she didn't sustain it she did say to to the to the jurors too and marcia jurors rely on your own independent from officer blanchard that as he increased the speeds over about forty five miles per hour that the shaking was immense and it was like driving cement tires at some point if you keep on going faster cement tires will break i think and i for his or or or what his findings were based on he this record he did testify a lot about what his experience with tires were in this case i mean and i don't believe he testified anything to fact of when they would explode but i think with suppose we thought it was all a problem why we can next i think we would argue that it's harmless error and that the judge would still be a friend in this case there was ample foundation laid for the type of evidence that he testified to and there he i believe that the harmless error would be the fact that there was no finding reliability but if the court were to review the record they could find a riot reliability in this case based off of the strong foundation laid by mr butler got us we didn't think that if we thought that he was unreliable we couldn't figure out why and where where he had the authority or he reliability to say anything about when the tire was going to block that it was going to blow up well if you wanted to strike mr butler said completely then it's nothing of our officer hernandez's testimony and whether or not his testimony that he was defeatist or they was caught is proper i don't think my brief made clear but there was no objection to the and first just to address the last point the prosecutor in rebuttal closing did say i believe actually was in regular closing guilty posture and so i do think that that's comparable to the testimony like he was  caught in addition to that the the number of objections that i had lodged at that point to this entire line of testimony was fairly overwhelming we knew that this was coming from the government's trial memorandum and addressed it before the start of evidence  and so at that point the objections have been overruled so many times in the district court had made it very clear that she was permitting this type of testimony and so i believe that any of further objections at that point would have been futile in addition to saying that someone looks like they have been caught and looking like you have a defeatist manner i'm very similar opinions and so i believe that the district court had already made their opinion known on that front in addition to that the government clearly in closing  two fifty five pull over the car roadside assistance hello send somebody to check my tires flagged down a cop and so clearly this testimony was was was fairly persuasive and repeated during both rebuttal closing and closing argument and so i do think that it affected the determination in this case i do think the jury would have would have considered it very strongly and especially when taking in conjunction with the other errors in this case that that these errors can't be considered  if you look at it whether it's going for instance that was a partial plane or a partial harmless layer error and that case that case was still reversed even though it was partially playing air because of the harm that the vouching did in that case i