criminal conviction clearly asking about a criminal conviction in the context of six or nine opens the door because that's one per teacher purposes of the government and then the other to ask very specific questions what what that conviction was and community was talking about his betting charges at that point i don't think that we could look at mr de martini's testimony in isolation the question about whether or not the words ok really has to focus on when information first came out and is the  asking simply if he had a pending criminal matter doesn't open the door the purpose for that was to give context to the fact that then he sat down and talk to the d a pressing it isn't isn't to the simple some of the substance here is decide whether the value of the maddux testimony justified taking the risk and you meet the litigators judgment on that night and i don't question it but then you have to live with what the outcome of that is the cases where people open the door in a hole or in the unpublished opinion lappie cited by the government in those cases the details were brought out to take the sting out of the facts  as a definitive ruling after mr deportees testimony in the court does not make mention of opening the door she said the information the evidence presented fits her analysis under rule four or four big and so that i think that to object contemporaneously which had him get a lawyer and go to the deep with a proposal is one thing but then to say guess what you all need to know just these that we will go on here suspicion of being in possession of stolen property he fabricates as it were a receipt in the first instance it was a receipt indeed that he got his wife to get for the lumber and in this instance it was a document the government i believe  be it has to do your honor with the fact that the when and the innocent explanation is proffered for the possession of stolen property then in many many cases as are cited in my brief the courts have held  what is clear in the record and what the judge very carefully instructed the jury about was that this was not really even good mid for the purpose and the government didn't seem to admit it for the purpose of he's accused of having st that's the context of the accusation but then again he manufactured a piece of paper to explain away his possession of stone number to bolster his innocent explanation that is a very unique and discrete piece of evidence and the judge instructed the jury that it's not just the stone number it's this the way he did a distinctive method i believe is the term the judge used in his truck in the jury and it isn't inappropriate for you to consider that receipt and the surrounding circumstances in any other context i would also add if i may be wrong and that this defendant was sentenced in her criminal history category  acts past a juror there were certainly a parade ready to go because this defendant had a more history of similar bad acts in india the judge in this case denied the government's request or for privy to the target of the investigation who said i want you to repossess i need some help we're going to give you that drug stuff later but in the meanwhile would you help me with the revisit action i'll give you some instructions and so on in that context when you're dealing with someone who obviously might not be following of your possession the same way that the expert would have the example be for a bag and then you're told by the d n a that you're supposed to be gracious yourself and kind of get into this person's confidence that we look at it that setting i don't so in his testimony the record is that i said it was my plane because that would require for less explanation that if i said i reprocess the plane and what that would entail and i believe that's in the record so i don't believe that this is a case