didn't support a conclusory statement can i just ask you on exhibit one sixty is this intended to portray the government's version of the conspiracy yes kind of how the the company if you will of the drug running company is the is the government something's not in the record the connecting the phone numbers to the phone to the person is not in the record the only way i can prove that is say you have to look at the whole record and i can't pick point to a particular change in the record and say it's not on that page because if it's anywhere in the record obviously that's fine i looked i didn't find it anywhere and if the government has pages that it can cite to specifically i haven't seen it and so you know it's always the government's burden to show the admissibility of its evidence so i would say that really is not an issue the other thing i'd like to talk to you is about the government's exhibit one sixty two not the one you have there with the dots on it the conversation between each of those people was discussed in other testimony and then they cite two places in the record where they say that hers the problem with that is there's just six seventy dots on it and so if you figure that's the way the chart set up that's at least thirty five phone calls and they didn't cite to the rest of it so that the objection at trial was that there even if there is some of it in there not all of it is and they are that's exact objection that was raised by a trial by the a trial turning our record patient or for that is in the forty one forty one two eighty six record it is page twenty four twenty seven and so it's not all there it's not old one also that evidence was used against my client i mean if i do see his name is on those charts and the dots are there and the links are there between the between the defendants and so on as far as that's concerned i don't think it makes it  harmless the second point is that i think more important is that they said it was so harmless because of the overwhelming evidence and there's a couple cases out there that are kind of interesting but the ideas the charts in this case symbolize a conspiracy i'm and is and is a short cut form of mine to mine and when you do that those charts are so important to the jury that they basically go in to t in this case santiago the gunas also involved in this case also connecting the trafficking of the drugs never met or saw didn't know if i was in this case so i would or accomp witnesses was so diminished by cross examination and presentation of previous misstatements to the court and the statements to agents be the fact that each of them was gaining salvador ago there was no direct communication ever recorded even though they had wiretaps and phone records for every other codefendant there was no record of salvatore accomplice or garra making any statements to any of those other co defendants or the witnesses the government brought participating in the conspiracy the government has the burden to present to the jury a case which will allow the jury to make a rational decision testified that they did your honor they did testify to that and oh no how can you say there's no testimony in the letter that he was involved with a your honor i submit that there's no credible testimony in the record and i know that the court defers to the jury to make determination richard khloe when he said that my client was a drug courier the second one gene the admission of guilt by association evidence that the government presented in the trial for  answered we speaking through the agency that he was working for we determined that he was believed to be a courier because the in the beginning of his testimony he was proffered as an expert and the court said any objection your i said no objection what was he an expert on as i understand it he was an expert on drug organizations ok and isn't that the context in which he used the term courier it wasn't you know in law school i remember these cases about the drug courier profile where they would stop you at the airport because you were wearing you know a funny hat or something like that and that was the drug courier profile or you were to got a one way ticket that's not the context in which this was said he's kind of doing the  talked about earlier and where does your client fit in that isn't that the context which would be consistent with what he was proffered for as an expert in that nobody objected to well i don't think so your honor because as nex for he can testify as to the need business model of drug trafficking organizations a business model but i don't believe he can cross the line and start naming names and in the people as he says this in this particular organization she is this news particular organization he's not profiling him to get there he's kind of saying the role he played he was a driver which would make him a courier in this organization that i'm an agent chlo of an expert on this is how these organizations work there's the top dog there's the middle guys whatever they have all their names and this is where he fell in and now i agree it would have been better not to approach it that way but is it really the same thing is the drug courier profile of well if a guy buys a one way ticket and wears a funny hat and and has a mustache that he's a drug courier well i think think use testimonies based upon drug profiling i mean the question itself is based upon your investigation or what does that investigation tale it entails some drug profiling i mean here richard close the very first witness in the case so he is he is almost like a super witness he is testifying as to his personal observations he's testifying as a summary witness of the entire investigation and he's also testifying as an expert in here it's all summed up by the government based upon your investigation that's not only what you have seen but it's also what your agents of c its own experts can do that they could rely on evidence that they didn't personally experience and so if there is evidence that your client was in fact  driver of drugs that's what a courier is isn't it it's not saying well he's got a mustache so he must be or he's you know standing there in a funny way or ease in the corner you know all those things that were those drug career profile cases this just doesn't hit me the same way i'm not saying you don't ultimately prevail on your point and just saying it seems different well when you go back to the question based upon you your investigation this is the government's question based upon your investigation what is that investigation if it's if it doesn't include drug profile i mean there is no in court testimony that he's relying on he is testifying as a summary witness and he's using that summary information he has the opinions of other agents and whatever that whatever they gathered and said point blank smites client is a drug couriers he puts them right into the conspiracy and i believe under this court's precedents he can't do that he can't say that we believe that this person is a member of a drug trafficking organization the expert can describe drug trafficking organizations and how they work but i don't believe that this court has said that hurdle agent can sit down and say sit in on the stand and say well based upon our investigation which may or may not include profiling and other out of court statements and documents and evidence i he described information that would be caroled to the to the facts in evidence that led to a jury could have done a five year time yes your honor at the very beginning of his testimony he describes drug trafficking organizations and how they worked and i believe that was proper under the rules but then but then the government delved into this specific organization where you have this agent calling people cell heads distributors couriers and it's all based knew he was a courier yes because the actual question was now based on your investigation the travel patterns of ortiz saul's are what did you determine answer we determined that he was believed to be a courier for the drug trafficking organization that we were targeting so along and she says hey could you carry my bag my suitcase for me the suitcase full of rug's but you don't have any idea just being a gentleman all that and you're saying just saying he's a courier that he physically transports stuff doesn't make him intentionally such a seems plenty of objecting in one like the lawyers were asleep but they didn't object to any of this mention of couriers cell heads or whatever and obviously plays into the standard review but tell us how that transpires here  thank you your just a couple things i like to dress one regarding egypt plow mispronounces names oh the government says that he gave his opinion based to what he saw i don't believe that's what it is asleep if this is so awful why was it objected to it was objected to late in a way because the same question was asked about some other someone some other one but by that time we'd had the statement you're concerned about as well as all the cell heads and couriers and whatever that you're yes whining about so i think yes i don't think that preserved ear let's put it that way and i think that changes your standard of review on the particulars right but to answer your question  i think i think like i said this agent clough becomes somewhat of a super witness where he can testify as to who's personal observations summary in and also for the opinion so it makes it very hard for the trial i believe that agent cloud crossed the line when he identified my client as a drug courier because that is not testifying as to a business model and allowing the jury to determine  what my client might have been in that business model but he testified that we determined that he is a courier for the drug trafficker he is a she it wasn't based upon just his personal opinion in the trial that the defense lawyers  did with they could damage control but in said you know we believe meaning the agency and whether that did through this trial that plane that framed the rest of the evidence i mean the jury is going to see my  drug courier and all the rest of the people lining up with richard klaus identification of everybody in this organization in dealing with the well that the rule and the government's rule twenty eight j larry they're the agent may know what certain are generalization regarding the defendants in the tents and i think it goes back to the business model  this court has allowed agents to talk about drug trafficking organizations business model but here it went even deeper where you have aged cloud identified people in doing things for the drug association the government contends here that he did not intend a trial that mr t s was guilty because of the people he associated with but just in closing certain people involved in this organization said this person was arrested this person was arrested this person was arrested which none of that is it admissible sure guilt but then it turns over to your t cells sort of says he's associating with all these people by association evidence and it's damaging and it's highly prejudicial we're not arguing that there was no evidence presented against four t cells are about his involvement in a drug organization but she can make additional copies for the judges or if you have multiple copies that would be fine to just ask you to visit with her about that and provide those  take the appointments and appreciate your good work on behalf of clients your case is under submission