or the way i read it it was there was an implied attack on the credibility of his testimony that's the purpose of it was it was to impeach the veracity of his testimony was it not w can be admitted it's time to bolster the credibility of the law enforcement agent for example the defense counsel says well you didn't put in your report that it said x or you put your notes in it said x and the government then comes up and says well here's the support where you did nature of the argument that was presented to the trial judge the nature of the objection to the referral slip was that it was hearsay and i and the amplification on that generalized statement i  claim to the united states citizen of the border or whether he remained silent and it was understood that there was a letter from the hospital that they had on their person saying that this individual was terminally ill and was requesting to see mr valma heart there's no  reserved ruling and then during the secondary inspectors testimony about the referral to secondary that is when the government's introduced into evidence and the secondary inspector i believe indicated that during the primary inspector's testimony i offered it i offered it it was not stated but it was as a public restroom eckard a ministerial document the judge reserved ruling on that then when i called the secondary officer i went through my direct examination did not refer or make reference to the referral slip then there was a cross examination establishing the circumstances of his contact with the defendant and the driver and then on redirect for the primary i then made reference to the referral slip wouldn't you the primary officer was already off the street and you have the second or else right  over the document was not used as a pro consistent statement of the prior of the primary of so you introduced it when the secondary officer was on correctly wasn't progress is the statement of the secondary officer no no but just why the chronology and the context is important because during the cross examination of the secondary officer evidence was that the driver came up and presented him this envelope and then letter and not bother to open it then we got into the referral on redirect where he said i received this referral slip from whom did you receive it i received it from mr loon of the driver in addition to th letter and then he got into what it commanded verify the united states citizenship well the reason he didn't open up the letter was because we he the secondary officer had these two conflicting the secondary officer understood it to have to be evidence of an assertion of claim of citizenship to the primary no other when he received the letter and he saw verify united states c that time he knew that the command was to be was to verify united states citizenship but because he had the letter and complete with a referral slip he then telephoned the primary officer and said well did you get this letter what happened here and at that time the primary officer said you know verifying u s citizenship this one guy said he was a united states citizen and that time the secondary th time out to that command without a hearsay objection correct although it was a continuing objection but at that time it was a continuation of the earlier objection what at that time  time i asked because it at the time it was to explain the effect upon me here why is there not for the purpose of showing that the truth of the matter asserted would explain behavior correct if you tell it to the judge we're not introducing this is hearsay no what reason for these rules of evidence and you really got to be precise especially with an appellate court going to be looking over your shoulder oh i understand but which goes also to the  not so much the assertion that was on the referral slip or the command but the absence because what happened was in the defense case the defendant  said he was a u s citizen and that there's a dispute exactly what was said and done at primary so when you got me so then when you finally got into it you got into it as a prior consistent statement yes did you call it a prior consists not not of that why not because it didn't had been admitted as a public record it had been as a public record and to explain the effect on the hearing why the secondary officer didn't open up this letter now there was no dispute that there was this letter but the big yes but during the defen had the sealed letter addressed the ins he didn't open it well why didn't he open it well because he had the referral slip saying verify us citizenship and that as a result of these two on what ground it was offered other than as a public document and did he ever ask for a limiting instruction i know but what happened was after the passenger testified that when they drove up the driver tried to hand him that letter and that the primary suspect was going to have nothing to do with it he said he didn't want to look at it then on rebuttal the primary inspector floor random testifie this is what i would have done had there been a letter asking for a humanitarian visa i have done it before i have done it before where the circumstances was they were hand were they were handing me a letter and the first thing i do is i ask what is this letter and then after i hear what the letters about i then read it and then whenever there is an application for humanitarian visa at the border for the secondary to help them process it or examined the person to see whether or not they would qualify for humanitarian visa when you were aware of the already on a block a rule that you can't use public records if they if they have nesting here say th simple observations from police officers yes i am your honor but in this case then why did you spot that when you were offering this is a public record now that you admit it was tantamount to a claim of us citizenship why don't i don't know which would seem to fall with if the inspector says i asked him what is the ship was doing and he told me us citizenship that in the context of other evidence that in light of the context of his claim i did not say anything and that i tried or that my brother in law tried to offer this letter to the primary that in the context of the referral slip says verify u s citizenship that the going through the effort to verify us is shit and the absence of saying process special permit or special permit leads to a reasonable the doctrine that the primary officers testimony version is accurate and that the other version should be question yes it's like you're going to try to have it both ways one on one hand you're trying to tell us that it wasn't hearsay because you didn't offer for the truth of the matter asserted simply explain the behavior of the secondary person but then on the other hand you're explains in the context of what well the price of the primary inspector did and why he did not do certain things why didn't he if the defendant  was going to apply for humanitarian visa and they presented a letter there he would have put down a special permit you argue that the referral slip was proof that he made a false claim of citizenship to the primary inspector i said that that that that is strange that they would not have presented a letter or a primary well the reason being your honor and then i got into this both in my breath and in my arguments the reason it was not presented and primary is has the specific knowledge that the possibility that he would be granted a humanitarian visa was really not and i asked him that on cross examination and his response was well i have to try i asked him specifically and you know because you were convicted of an aggravated felony that caused you to be deported that the possibility of you being granted this visa list remount and he said i have to try  hear further is that even though he knew that the possibility of this being granted humanitarian visa was remote because of the nature of this convention that he still had to try and that he that the the referral slip there's a ministerial dr no no i'm talking about the statement but i don't know if you review the record i did are you asking about and i pol objection i heard you say that was confusing objection that's right and what i thought that you were asking about the objection was with regard to the referral slip because after the secondary inspector said i can ta that's what he said which was that they both claimed united states citizenship the question and was that communication through the referral slip that is exhibit a which is and found out this one exhibit eight yes and this is how exhibit eight the referral slip came in i turn to the court do you still reserve judgment regarding admissibility of it the court is or continued objection yes you when i was talking about the continuing objection i was talking about when it was the primary i offered to put all this in your brief to show that if this was there it was harmless i have to review my grief with regard to  try understand the grand jury selection a grand jury selection