the first was a rico conspiracy count second drug conspiracy count the jury's verdict as to him was mixed on the rico count they were unable to reach the government elected not to retry him on that count on the drug count they found him guilty this morning the issue that i intend to focus on is this does the judges the district judge's decision denying the island's post trial motion for a new trial specifically on the quote unexplained of wealth  undermine confidence in the reliability and fairness of the jury's verdict on that one charge of the drug conspiracy and because of the nature of this issue first was she concluded on the basis of the evidence introduced and not introduced during the course of this eleven week trial that the government's arguments and evidence concerning problem for the well and on the government's claim of unexplained wealth it seems to me is that quite a bit of the evidence ones well as coming from legitimate sources namely his real estate development business so how do you explain how he was harmed by a very brief argument about unexplained well when his w was legitimately explained yes your honor and that's as you're aware one of the reasons that the district judge cited in regard to saying that this evidence was not appreciably prejudicial because the judge said that it was inconceivable to her that this very troubled argument in evidence could have had an effect and the reasons why your honor it's so important here related to the if not you need highly unusual circumstances of this trial virtually all of the government's evidence against the well consisted of a test a cooperating witness and cooperating witnesses cool received benefits for their cooperation that exceed anything that i have ever seen in years of practice two of them got immunity who w involved in multiple kidnappings fronting kilos of cocaine and so forth another of them far as tomorrow who are looking at life in prison potentially got a total of four years additional in a federal conspiracy case that happens all the time out be it perhaps not within two since that you have here what is unusual is the lack of any of the usual times  macleish could you address one of the things that obviously was a major concern for the district judge if money was why the district judge found that most of the severance as i understand it was properly admitted all the evidence from the argument that informs it if you look in these closing arguments there is nothing said up out circumstantial evidence pascha circumstantial evidence of your honor i think it makes a difference because because the jury's been asked to look at in terms of unexplained wealth is the full a ray of his financial dealings and wealth and to infer from that because no proper explanation has been forthcoming therefore he's guilty with the cash what you have is a much more narrowly circumscribed amount of evidence and you have a different theory of admissibility that requires  well it's about as to me it's about a similar is four zero four pm evidence coming in for identity on one hand and modus operandi on the other you're awfully close could you also address the fact that there was apparently no objection do any of this evidence there was no objection during trial and i responded that in two ways one as often happens the government's evidence here and case i'm not faulting them but it was something of a moving target at the time  that was and there was some confusion on that that is separate the government responded to the judge's concern about a possible brady issue and one of their supplemental responses in the lower court saying mr macleish you're going to go ahead was no contemporaneous objection maid was already taken into consideration by the district court judge when she applied the plain error standard at that stage right in found no prejudice and sounds and found no reason to upset the result of the trial based on mars there was no mention based on this distinction between cash and wealth and evidence that came in without  going to lose her job to ensure a hearing should have been held to determine if she was under such stress or extremal or internal coersion as for her from being able to continue with jury deliberations initially on the issue of unexplained wealth requires and other evidence in addition to things like purposes that cetera must be introduced in order to corroborate the so called unexplained well the government promised during the trial in that's in the record documents for twelve thirty two pages the government promised to provide mr curry stacks returns for the year two thousand through two thousand and nine in fact the government even acknowledges that the rep briefed at page eighty two that never occurred there was never any corroborating evidence  out the different things that were introduced at trial and it was there was a trip to the super bowl there's a separate two other cars as well and some some jewelry ok so we got a big spen the evidence about the false credit applications in the phony employment arrangements set up for him right in the he made investment in the motor platinum motors and it's being paid a salary back they put him on the payroll right so it looks like he's in he claims for the rest of the world that he's an employee right if he does claim that he's unfairly so he did invest in the company itself in britain also had other other positions as well with the government was required to do though w provide something beyond just cash outlays as evidence to show that he could not have actually earned that money through legitimate means there's no evidence whatsoever present in the trial by the government despite their own promise provide the tax returns there's no evidence whatsoever another issue and it's this because i'm i really want to hear what you have to say about this so like the district i mean i want to hear everything you have said good like that just record i find the government's conduct in bringing witnesses to the court room window to identify defendants distasteful but what attention of the jury after each well let's say for each witness that was affected your honor i would argue that the bringing that the ethical duty obviously is you can't have coaching in any sort of an in court identification it's not clear if you i think it was a dea agent who was bringing witnesses to the courtroom looking through the window pointing out the defendant's prejudice even if it's not directly prejudicial again i think goes to this idea that she wanted to hear that throughout this trial you had about six different things that occurred i would argue each of them was prejudicial but you had an  erroneous for cause challenge during jury selection you had false and contradictory testimony by the government's cooperating witnesses again you had the witnesses brought to the courtroom window you had the admission the financial evidence you have yes you into the sylvan instruction at a point where it should not have been issued and then finally the failure to hold the rimmer hearing on the crying juror in addition to the government's commentary again back on the financial or unexplained wealth issue the commentary that mr your r d did not rebut or provide any evidence of how  tell the judge if the problem persisted and it certainly would seem that the jury never raised the issue again then the deliberations continued they don't doesn't seem as if judge contra more and don't that issue quite well your honor i would respectfully disagree i think that judge gottschall and this is a pretty simple fix didna did anybody ask her to do anything other than what she did with the crying juror they suggested and it really related as well to the silver instruction that it was sort of the wrong that there was coerce and was there an objection on the record to the way the judge handled that situation there  was at the end of the trial mr sullivan filed a motion on behalf of mr you're already detailing the issue when it was to after the verdict of been after the verdict but at the judge's at the judge's request to get additional objections into the record it was actually put in the record mr sullivan supposed trial motion i don't know that there was a specific objection during the time the crying or it also happened about the same time as the sylvan instruction where the work clear objections made by the defense counsel  roberts question this is a pretty simple administrative fix if you have a situation where you know that a juror is crying and that the reason that they're crying is they're afraid that if the deliberations don't end that they're going to lose their job then it's a simple fix to bring that juror al in have a rumor here and it's not a difficult thing it's not a difficult administrative change when you have a situation where somebody is under such either external pressure from their employer telling him you've got to get back to work or we're going to fire you are such internal pressure within themselves i've just feared that they're going to lose their job it's reasonable to conclude that jury is not going to be able to act accurately and impartially participate deliberations that that person would want to bring deliberations to a conclusion as quickly as possible situation we had in a fight industry or are these forty a total of about seven errors that occurred well i would argue that each of them is uniquely prejudicial i think that in total the reality is you is simply the only evidence against mr purity that's not cooperat this financial evidence of a series of other errors throughout the course of the trial in total and this was a complex trial but in total those errors resulted in due process for mr your r t thank you thank you counsel real really hotly when i raised and judge o you argue that the district court didn't understand it's her just pression to consider the sentences of the cooperating dependence but she seemed to me to be saying that she did not want to consider those sentences because she considered them to be frightening in rather short sentences you know that was a page twenty five of the sentencing transcript that was attached to your brief and other words not sure i ought to be considering these people i just don't know about you made aware that case so well i i told her the question is did it make any impression i mean and you put her to comments to keep rather i would submit the most natural reading is that she just didn't think that she ought to consider the act and then in her when she goes and impose a sentence she doesn't say anything she doesn't address it in deciding on and articulating why  she's deciding to impose a sentence that she does so you combine her initial state i don't know if i'm allowed to consider that and then not talking about it not stating her what her consideration was which is what she's supposed to do then she gave cogent reasons for dropping the hammer on parquet he was it she maintained he was the worst of the bunch that went to trial and that he had demonstrated no redeeming or mitigating factors she knew she would see she knew she could compare his sense of the suggesting is that that's not what she did do it's not a logical reading of i don't know that i'm allowed followed by i'm just not sure i ought to be considering that i mean she's she stuck in the old law i mean that's that's that's that's the most logical reading of what she actually said because she then doesn't go on when she impose a sentence amy think about my single she knows i  assume that as an experience does she know she's supposed to comment on the defendant's strongest contention in her or primary issue and head those non cooperating witness do you think has been sentenced ye compare to all cooperate or sit had their sentences one way or another and two of the defendants other defendants have heard even sometimes gardena got ten years but that does make a difference when you're looking at appropriate when she worked somewhat backwards to fit it into the mandatory and discretionary portions of the sentence look i did it seems to me that she was starting from a thirty two she knew she was starting from a thirty two year base and then she came up with sixty the question is if she had known she was starting or thirty your base canned the court and this court say with confidence she would not have reduce the sentence at all because it doesn't have to be we don't have it isn't she afterward used by two years the question is should she have had to reduce it at all i mean shit would she have decided to reduce it at all i don't think we can put our self and yet got killed mine and figure what whether she would have made any reduction if she'd known she was starting from thirty rather than than thirty two years mr bill i'm starting from the premise that there was sufficient ample evidence to convict jorge henri r j of using or carrying also in essence finding that he brandished if they had been asked that question this all stems from the violent could be a deal a kidnapping raid there was a lot of confusion about what happened i mean in there this case that there was a lot of a lot of agendas that work in in in in the witnesses who are testifying it readily apparent during the trial and so they could have found him sent a century of being merely present and theoretically you know on a pinkerton ground they perhaps he should have found him but if they had found him merely present they might well have not found him to brandish and and i would finally say that the analysis seven i guess on that issue i was certainly interested to see what the third circuit has had to do to say about relaying opinion in this context but also that these are issues pretty similar to problems that we faced in the wake of a and that's why i was asking you whether it sure you could rationally have convicted him of only using charity because i think that's the kind of approach that our court has taken with the printer here hers and i would think the same applies to there was no pretrial motion to suppress the argument submitted here is the objection a trial was not to prevent pedro below from testifying at trial or for from page to reveal of being asked to identify anyone at the trial of or standing up and saying that's the man who broke into my house further with that exhibit three seventy six in the record there was a lot of confusion when they first attempted to introduce it because apparently the agents first showed a hundred photographs or so to the witnesses and mr avila and then at trial they attempted to submit just six four grams if that is considered a motion to suppress my argument is that there was good cause for not raising that prior to trial because there were surprised that it just came up at that moment during the trial and the the trial court didn't ask you know why was in this race before and the government never objected under rule twelve or is claiming that this needed to be brought trial and with that photograph that was not shown to mr b until two years after his alleged kidnapping and then it was never confirmed with any sort of line ups and it was performed shown to him by the case agent who arrested sparkman and who was the taste agent on this case and that was the only non cooperating witness for evidence against tony stark the and the cooperating witness for this count  kidnapping the jury did not credit him when they acquitted tony sparkman in count four when this cooperating witness flores also testified against photographs of people of different races in the trial court and even mention that if you were shown pictures of people of different races there would have been a motion to suppress yes could you summarize for us why the extensive court cross examination of mr viola about the reliability of this identification was not sufficient to present the issue fairly to the  jury i think because if even if at that moment believed that that was the person who broke into his house it can't go back at the fact that he wasn't shown it for two years and that was a different colored you and i would like to ask you one more question if i might because i think i didn't understand your argument that the testimony of  officer healy we guarding a deal is identification sparkman was improper bolstering because what i'm trying to figure out is how did that test boaster the identification it seems to me that it's simply repeated the identification the officer didn't that's for a helium for example or i do anything that we typically consider that we typically consider poster i think just the mere fact that they were able to use an agent to repeat the identification would be bolstering there was no reason for the that agent to testified in the mere fact that he was able to get up there and essentially repeat of the list testimony bolster the fact that a deal had never identified sparkman at trial why can't the government offer such evidence about the circumstances of the prior identification to rebut attacks on its reliability they can some testimony about the circumstances but i believe the case law is clear though that they can't testify about the actual identification unless the witness recants or testifies that he does not remember making that identification and here mr  process and he asked them to initial the photo of the person he identified correct yes and that's where it stopped or did it go on from there that's where it stopped but the implication there was that identified m good morning may please the court i'm heather winslow counsel on behalf of robert guardian m i've raised three issues in the brief and i'd like to focus on the issue regarding the admission of testimony suggesting that mr cardenas offered to cooperate with a consciousness of guilt and is therefore relevant however in this case the circuit the factual circumstances of the the event that led to the testimony set apart from the cases the government sites and make it isn't it and you he'd be willing to cooperate at the time he exchanged and they exchanged telephone numbers but no commitments were made and the mr hardy in a letter contacted the law enforcement agents and told him that his lawyer had advised him not to cooperate not to this particular conspiracy however these the same type of statement that came before the kick for the jury is nothing more than a question to agents whether if he provided some cooperation or provided some information they  characterization of this statement could be that he was intending to curry favor with authorities so that the agents would stop coming by his house and harassing him and that was his his position at the time in addition the government also argues that favor and i would also say i'd be asleep that's a huge factor when other people's statements are being offered against to defend that is correct and you're saying that same principle the same standard has to be met when a defendant's  words are being offered against him if they're being offered under that exception yes you are that is our position that he took in more than a billion dollars in cash from his participation in rockeries there were approximately six robberies in which he participated there was testimony at trial for each of the incidents in question he generated from legitimately with absolute tax returns how much evidence was there were in each of these defendants that the money was not legitimately acquire it is very important to take these defendants separately there was an objection made by hector your r t during the trial to the admission of evidence of his receipt and use of proceeds from the conspiracy there it was briefed it was in writing there was a very fulsome discussion on the record with the district court in which the government represented that it would be meeting the prongs of karada and with respect to his source of so called legitimate income for the spending you're right judge grosvenor the government represented that it would be introducing three sources of evidence with regards to what his income was his tax returns a mortgage application and financing applications for vehicles by contrast there was no such discussion ever in the record with regards to the well it is just simply incorrect there was any objection or discussion of this issue with respect  reason why is starting an opening statement llewellyn's attorney in braced this theory with regards to him being a successful business person who ran a home building business his whole theory of the case is that all rodriguez were involved in business dealings together and had a rift with regards to that home building business that explains rodriguez's testimony against him so that is his theory of the case it's the reason why i  believe that there was no objection made to the admission of this evidence so that's an important distinction because i think as you're concerned about the government offering to put and the tax returns with respect to your party and i'm not doing it but that's that's not the government can get up in an opening statement promise the jury that the jury will hear something and then if the government is porch to have some of that come  in opening statement by the government of tax returns the discussion in question was won with the court without the jury present in the room in response to a written motion that filed shall enjoying the admission of this evidence there was a motion there was a motion hearing help court at which the government represented here that your piece of evidence about the limitations of his legitimate income that we are going to present to justify conversation that that evidence at trial established that he was taking it very massive amounts of cash proceeds from this criminal scheme and the testimony from broadway guests as well scarcely mar was that that was being  generated in the form of cash so they would get drugs sell the drugs on the street you know common senses but that's been turned over to them in cash and the vast majority of that evidence introduced without objection from the defense a whelan's possession and use of those proceeds was that he was investing them in his business almost as a form of money laundering so he was paying subcontractors excavator contractors flooring contractors except with cash that the characteristics of that cash made it very probative we're not talking about him going to the bank deposit in cash taking it you know taking it out putting it in a briefcase in the way that you would if you're you know legitimately dealing in cash we're talking about cash that was well or at random to dominations in paper bags bounced our pants all in circumstances in which these witnesses testify it was very unusual through illegitimate means the defense focuses on a few pieces of evidence very limited pieces of evidence about his use of not cash in this case there are two pieces of evidence that i think are in question opening statements was that land had ceded his home building business with money from his criminal proceeds so he had a sixty one thousand dollars salary as a chicago police department officer there did the government no till that court or defense counsel that you would be offering the financial summaries or his tax returns there was a discussion either before or during trial where the government had turned over it had conducted a financial analysis by a revenue agent and it had turned over that analysis and i think this sumption was that it perhaps was going to be introduced that discussion i believe if my memory serves was a private one between the government and found defense counsel i do not recall any place on the record where this was discussed and and even if there was some discussion was not in the context of unexplained well so because there was no objection i'll wait to get the introduction of that evidence there was no discussion of this in the context of justifying the introduction of what is the best evidence against llewellyn that does not involve testimony from a cooperating coconspirator if we exclude the testimony of the exclude the testimony of cooperate ing co defendants given that there is no challenge to the introduction of that evidence there that was the case against the well and so the unexplained wealth if for lack of a better there were seven cooperating co defendants or coconspirators who testified against the well they gave direct testimony about his participation in approximately upwards of six robberies or pit napping in which they obtained drug proceeds by violence so the two of them had immunity the other five were cooperate insofar as they had received certain benefits for their testimony the jury was properly instructed on how to consider the testimony of cooperating defendants that they had received benefits in exchange for their testimony and the jury chose to nonetheless credit against llewellyn was based on the testimony of seven coconspirators and the evidence of his receipt and use of proceeds that that was the evidence against him your honor there is there were corroborating there was corroborating evidence it wouldn't in itself sustain the verdict if that's what you're asking you know there was there was evidence about his perjured testimony in a prior case there was evidence about his his cooperation agreement with rodriguez when he was a chicago police department officer you know there's crabber eating records kind of at each stage of his involvement in the conspiracy but the bulk of that testimony as it was as is true of all of the defendants here brief the contention is that most of those witnesses had long term relationships with the dependents could easily identify them and so there was no harm but that really the question of why this what i consider an unseemly display happen in the first place i'm i would appreciate your explaining how that decision was made what the government was hoping to gain from this practice and if this is indeed a regular practice by the government your honor the record does not indicate why i'm happy to address the reason why but it's not reflect in the record i will say that the opening statement indicates that there were some substantial changes and certain defendants appearances between the time of their participation the conspiracy and the time of trial so for example in opening statement there was there were pictures that were shown of these individuals and a comparison made to what they look like today because of the changes in their hair changes in their weight that  explicitly on the record with respect to whether this is some somehow a regular practice of the government the answer is no it is it is not done routinely i think that the government recognizes that identifications i on vacations should be spontaneous they should not be something that's rehearsed and so there are there is some concern there as this court noted in cord that substantial difference between the prior case in which this court has addressed this issue and the present cases in court it was a it was a bank teller it was a individual who had seen the defendant for a period of a minute maybe a few minutes and then w after that in this case this this portman jennifer process was used for seven individuals as disclosed in a letter to the defense that's talked about in the post trials motions the four catch them in a ha you have a difference in memory about this and the transcript of the testimony of bacon makes very clear that at the time that he remembered this dead body in the location where he had been king that he had been tortured for a number of days he had been within inches of his life he had almost drowned to the point where both he and his his companion had thought that he was dying and so there are there are explanations for kind of differences in memory and differences and what people see that are far short of there being actual perjury that's the knowingly false testimony in question if i may all turn to issues with respect to the church there was constitutionally and statutorily there is no allegation that they had anything bought the jury that convicted them was undoubtedly impartial there's no challenge the people that actually were sitting that convicted and returned guilty abuse to preemptory challenge to remove your twenty four it certainly could have used a preemptory challenge your honor by the forecast challenges were ruled upon prior to getting to a point where the government was actually exercising its branch rooster i don't think there's any doubt that that could have that could have happened i don't think that it was necessary to get to that point in light of your twenty four hours on truthfulness in direct response to questions that were posed to him during the course of the board year process with respect to the juror who relayed to the judge through the c s l that she was having problems with the length of deliberations it is suggested by mr your t's counsel on that this somehow compromises the verdict because they were forced to go back into liberated and i think that a close review of the record indicates that the district judge  on the twenty sixth so nine days later the jury returned the note in question saying that they had voted were unable to reach a verdict on on some of the counts at that time the judge announced t offering to contact the jurors employer herself she may have and she may have also been offering to do that and i think a review of the record indicates her intention why's that if the jerk in forward is you know that information was either something that dissipated or it's something that was said and heat of the moment that wasn't a actual prevalence concern and question and on that same day the twenty sixth the court gave the silver i thought he indicated that you've made the point that nobody asked for this so called grammar hearing and i thought he was saying so he thought somebody did there is no request and at the time on the twenty sixth when this issue was occurring for iran were hearing i believe that after the trial this was raised for the first time i believe that it was raise that and post trial briefs for the first time if there was a request for a hearing there was no there was undoubtably in objection to the giving of the silver instruction by the defendants they said this would be course if in light of the concerns about is about external influences on the jury and there's a reason for the rule and rammer which is when there is an extra no communication with a jury it is presumptively prejudicial there is no reason for somebody to be having contact with a juror in the course of ongoing to liberation and so there's the presumptive due process violation this court has made that distinction between ex turn off and internal communications where there's a problem interest jury you know hearing is not something that's re to be necessary in this this case i suppose as a tally gets to the internal problems that it's i don't you think it rises to that level given the minimal issue that we're we're talking about here if i they asked him if you would like to cooperate and he said yes that's what they arranged for an exchange phone numbers and discuss the possibility of him coming into the u s attorney's office to cooperate the evening i haven't he called one of the agents and he said you know i talked to my because you chose consciousness of guilt and that the sensor could hasn't yet decided that issue but that three other circuits have and that it was an admission against interest so my question to you is is it necessary to decide this on this new theory of consciousness of guilt or i mean do you not agree that the statement was copa turi i believe it was i am not sure that i see the distinction it was in called but tori and maybe one of the reasons why is because it shows consciousness of guilt that he was saying i have information about these individuals related to the subject that we previously discussed which is a robbery so it the case he was a participant in that robbery that is a cop tory and i supposed in addition to that it shows that he has consciousness of its own of his own guilt and understanding of the implications time that interview was on the stand the government had asked mr avila about a photo that was shown to him if there was an objection then there was a sidebar and there's about six page discussion on the record with the district court about the individual the government said ok we will stablish that foundation and the courts directed the government to establish the foundation with which it there appeared to be some confusion on the part of the defense about the particular photo array in question but there's no doubt that when you read the record that there was not an injection made on the grounds or raised here it was just if it's back on was a different color the lapses in memory all those things are raised now were not shows i mean that that doesn't seem any different than healy telling the jury if you are identified sparkman and that is hearsay is available subject to cross examination and also testified that exactly this case this is something this court addressed for example in the foster case it's addressed numerous times that agents are permitted to testify about these types of clients and the important distinction about this case is even if that weren't talking about the initials right that initials are it's are if for lack of a better statement by a vila identifying an individual and that falls within ada one to use exception to hearsay it's not hearsay it's a statement of identification of an individual with respect to the allegations of the suggestiveness of the photo array itself all of these issues that are currently complained of were subject to very extensive cross examination examination and the jury was presented with that information was permitted to creditor or discredit it i also would note that even if you were to throw out of you as a dentist patient in this case there is substantial evidence to support this particular count there are a number of not be a substantive challenge the reasonableness of the sentence despite some of the arguments that were made today here but rather procedural want that the district court did not understand perth already to take these other sentences into account and i very much agree with that you're not quite answering my question which is what would prohibit the district judge from saying in essence the government has cut such generous deals with  conspirators that i'm not going to hammer this defendant as hard as the government is asking me to why would that be unlawful because they're not  and a broader sense of how this current this crime and this criminal compare to other crimes that other criminals i and i understand the concern i understand what you're getting at i think in the context of this argument where it raised her as a as a look as a high sentence creating a disparity her comments indicate a understanding of this court this you don't have to show that the judge was prohibited from to take you those matters into account i thought you had been making the argument in your brief that she understood the extent of her discretion but i'm troubled that you now seem to be saying she that the comments that the defense has picked up on were actually correct that she was prohibited from considering those matters you know i don't i don't mean to be i would hope not no i what i don't i don't see what probation you've got here right i think that she understood her general obligation to consider other sentences i think she also understood that these individuals that the those specific seven individuals that have been identified were not similarly situated that that's how i understand her comments to read i also think that judge rove nurse comments during l don't you can be taken into consideration right and i think that her comments also indicate that they shouldn't be in so far as she disagreed with what those sentences were they were really shocked and she thought that y that that's in the context of discussing the leadership of hanssen at what the port comment was that he actually had very substantial involvement in a conspiracy including murder a number of very fine kidnappings that were that were the violence how strong that evidences there's sufficient evidence yes your honor i think that there might i would characterize evidence from the trial on that question to be quite overwhelming there are a number of individuals who testify about the events in question beyond a reasonable doubt he would have been convicted on that charge also your honour's and if this was particular as party charges and the government misrepresents and i'm not saying touch the government have a massive record deal with your but the government misrepresents the extent of the communications between the government and the defense during the course of the trial regarding the government's i'm mean intention to introduce is there a claim that this jury was not impartial there is a claim that we would have ended up with a completely different jury that's not my question is there a claim that the jury was other than impartial there is no claim the jury was other than  specifically stated government agents may only testify to this is prior statement identification with witness forgets or changes his testimony at trial what's the basis for that given the i believed to prevent situations just like prevent a situation where the government calls witnesses they don't do the identification then they can put a government agent who is more difficult to cross examine may be seen more beneficial by the jury to do that identification which is exactly what happened here  secondly with the allen issue the government argues that you know spark an argument that there is no brandishing but that was never charged anything but there is no argument to make and further the evidence is not as clear as they like to s can witness not cooperate in witness noise confusion about how many people were there people at mass how many people were downstairs how many people were upstairs and based upon that i believe the allen mr not should not be convicted for brandish asked whether or not he could provide information about other individuals it became simply a statement that was intended to show that he was a bad guy that he knew criminals it was not it because it was the second time it was no longer in earth question it was no longer a stigma gets interest because it had a relevance to this case at that point thank you thank you thanks nor counselor case will be taken under advisement