but to the fact that was hearsay that's correct that the death threat the objection to the evidence itself was addressed pretrial in the elimination there was no specific objection to the hearsay nature of the evidence at that time as it was impossible to do the government's proffer prior to the trial was simply that our witness will state that coming said yes there may not threats yes but that was after it should never be my position is your honor chevre got into that because when he was asked if coming said anything to him directly that's when he said no and that's when he was asked what did he say anything  so while the government is saying that it was understood in the board room to the judge and to the jury that he over that those he was present for the as only if you assumed that government says in their brief is this what everyone understood that was in the court room but it's ambiguous at best in my position is it should have stopped as soon as who's he stated that absolutely i mean it's clearly in the transcript there was also no limiting instruction given which contrary to the that's what the  the no but i would argue that the argument that the government made in some nation was not did not frame this as consciousness of guilt evidence of framed it as cummings is a dangerous person a dangerous and violent person and i would i would say that the lack of a limiting instruction amplify that prob absolutely your honor particularly in this case where this was stick this this death threat evidence that the testimony was purely stand alone this is not it there's to come more hughes from this court which talked about of this type being useful to explain the witnesses demeanor if he was somewhat sheepish on the stand to work it allowing it in if it was so intertwined with the narrative that this story that you couldn't take it out and still have that story makes sense and that is not crimes or a charge that bears on you know how prejudicial this could be here we are talking about someone who is charged with two assassination style murders and that's really bears we think significantly and i think the core agreed on on the prejudice inflammatory is this for the jury it matters that the jury was hearing three weeks of testimony about how the defendant killed two people in that context mean and i think that weighs in the balance as to how much how many how prejudicial it could be versus the pro think your honor to just to make i'm not your question i mean obviously it affects the probity value as well as one thing to call someone around bastard it is something else for sure to say that some of the shoot someone in the face that's on both sides of the ledger both as a consciousness of guilt in the moment but whether or whether when this is testifying or when the jury is being charged the defense counsel and wanted they could have raised their hand and asked for a living instruction and by the way there may have been a very good reason they did not want to live in  two and two three two three and here's where they're here's here's the confusion alan says that the jury was not instructed on the but that's not correct what happened was this a two three two two  read them the count which contains the carpets and then immediately thereafter instructed them on the elements judge were did not repeat a second time the carvers because he had told them that ten seconds earlier we think that is totally sufficient even if you don't find him guilty count one conspiracy you should still convict him of with the carrots because you could be that those homicides could be related to some other concern and their government still has