i'll do my best to watch my clock i'll try to reserve two minutes for a bottle our first claim yours is the sufficiency of the evidence and i think i'd like to make sure predicate points on that issue first that i think are both either undisputed or undisputable number one is the body camera evidence was at the heart of the case in particular on count one but i also think on it was interest it was integral to the count the court's finding on charge for as well the second is that the body camera was never introduced into evidence now in our current procedural posture what that means is that under rule ten it's not available for consideration by the court so when i say the evidence was insufficient and the government responds by saying no body cam the court the government is asking the court to do something forbidden by and that distinguishes our case from the brown case cited by the government in which at the sentencing hearing the district court on proton actually admitted the evidence so you know reporters are pretty lenient as to whether or not there has to be a formal admission into evidence of something like this and i don't see that this is not admitted for versus actually being properly in front of the cord it may be challengeable on other grounds but i'd like case law is pretty lenient in terms of whether there needs to be a formal admission and a stamp and all that stuff well actually you know we cited two cases from the court phillips case and the kershner case which say the opposite and i haven't seen anything in our particular matter cited by the government that contradicts our cases and unfortunately under normal and i think before i dive into the balancing test specifically for us i'd like to make a general pitch to the court to please take a look at the comments ok because i think so but as close to our cases as you can find the case law and presents a pretty clear roadmap for speaking to him and text messaging him so i think in tacoma to we have facts that establish that mr abdul is interest in confrontation of the constitution was at its apogee the government side of the balance i think the more contested side and i like to emphasize two points in this respect one is the reliability slash excited audience issue and i hope the court has had an opportunity to review the body cam evidence before the hearing today or at least you will after the court the court's case law is clear that to make an i there has to be neither an opportunity for reflection nor reflection itself and when you watch the body camera video it's to me it's crystal clear officer harm you asked her who did this who put the gun behind your back she pauses she wipes  she looks around and she says joseph and i'm not trying to go by it by reenacted but it that's truly what she did and to me that reflects literally reflection she was literally reflecting about what she was going to say was she go that it happened or was she going to say it was joseph was she going to see was somebody else you could see the gears turning in her head that takes this case outside of an excited utterance and that removes the indeed the traditional dish of a liability that the government has been relying on it's actually kind of an interesting case study in the intersection of modern technology and these traditional here's exceptions because when you have bought a camera and you don't have to rely on officer harm you know you watch for yourself and you say that's not an excited utterance she's reflecting the other major point on the government's side is the question of good cause now the case law including calm until not to sound like a broken record make clear that it's the government's burden to establish good cause that's their burden in this situation and what we have from the ca concession that she made zero effort zero to bring mr abbott to his to bring this one to his to mr raval this hearing what she said was in early january two or three weeks before we don't know exactly when we were trying to find her for a different sixteen so whatever the federal government was going after her for in early january doesn't necessarily have any equivalence to why she would have potentially maybe doj them for our case so i hope that makes sense or else they're trying to draw a parallel between her dodging them allegedly in early january so they throw their hands up when they say well she would dodge us again for mr abbott's hearing but they haven't they haven't met their burden introduce any evidence actually supporting that inference to translate whatever she was doing allegedly in early tried one phone number so i can to it with the resources of the federal government to say that we couldn't find her we throw our hands up i think is is is a bit of a stretch from here on you know they didn't do it there's no evidence that they tried to just hang out outside of her her house and try to just wait for her to see either of the houses not even the ones they said that is they give or they give her son a business card and then they expect her to come find her i think frankly the record could easily support inference that they were going after her for something and so of course she said i'm not talk to them we don't clearly erroneous when the district court judge said it was an excited utterance well the broader constitutional claims to know well yes to know it's a constitutional issue and within that as a sub issue it is if we conclude that it is the that the district court judge didn't care whatever standard you apply there yes it was an excited utterance at the time she made the statement what does that mean what is that in the analysis no not at all i know it's a little bit of weight to the government side of the balance because the reliability of the evidence is one of the factors in the flexible balancing analysis but the case law is clear is th reserve the rest of my time ok thank you thank you thank you looking at the video the government has a different perspective than the defense as to whether there was a reflection or as to whether this was an upset woman who just was shot at and believed that she may have been shot and was speaking to discretion standard for admission as an excited utterance but as we're trying to evaluate it in terms of how trustworthy it is as we put it into the due process business the fact that it might have been admissible  reliability of the statement the crop rating factors that being the nine one one call or that the independent female who identified and older model believe it was integra or acura that was tan it was related to the shooting  the defendant had a mr avalon had an affinity registered to him finding the car and then finding nine millimeter bullets inside of the door in the car which was the same caliber as the casing that was found at the scene and  alone not the same brand correct i don't believe they were the same brand they were the same caliber well now this this incident of this alleged shooting is rather unusual to say the least you had to happen to know you know residence and she winds up with a bullet somehow in her clothing but didn't didn't really do much damage to her by what you claim is  rinse spontaneous but she has time to contrive a lie so in that same conversation with the policeman she lies about her relationship with the alleged shooter right she wasn't forthcoming about her relationship with the shooter i believe the question was whether it was or not to say things like you were asked is whether he lied she lied i viewed what her statement was i don't know that they were boyfriend and girlfriend from reading the facebook messaging it appear that they had a sexual relationship for sure whether they were ever boyfriend girlfriend that wasn't clear and i believe that was the question of whether he was a boyfriend or whether he was an ex boyfriend but i don't think that it was a forthcoming answer to say no to either of those questions given that there clearly was an intimate relationship between the two of them previously but that was false to say the least it was falls it was deceptive and it was  the officers searched the apartment and then they came back out and they had a conversation about their relationship so there was a break in between the time where she identified joseph and the point where there was a discussion about are important yes they are very important they are and you have no contradiction to what counsel has were presented by way of your effort  there is one clarification for sure and terms of there being to address those are two phone numbers in the police report that police report was from the shooting which was an april of two thousand and sixteen at reynolds met with two thousand and sixteen when she provided that to agent reynolds and so then after that agent runnels attempted to contact her at the address where she had contacted her on that day which was her residence in october of two thousand and sixteen and by calling the phone number that miss want to use had given her runnels and other agents made attempts to contact her and the phone number was no longer in service being an excited utterance the other identifying factors included as i mentioned the car description the nine millimeter casing the facebook posts that were two days after the shooting where miss fuentes had indicated  that she was angry that he had shot at her and he should have killed her i believe that's what she said that she he pulled the trigger you should've killed me which tends to corroborate the fact that she at least believed that he was the one who had pulled the trigger  to finish up there's my other question i guess i have multiple question my question was in your read brief you talk about the distinction between if we were under the sixth amendment confrontation clause which is a higher standard technically i guess because you have a constitutional right to confrontation and here we're under more saber versus breuer fifth amendment imbedded constitutional opportunity which is reflected in the federal in the i guess crawford concern and under the fifth amendment now and then whatsoever crawford doesn't apply to the supervised release violation hearing but just as a matter of due process i mean this is this is this is non testimonial though under the fifth does it make a difference under the fifth amendment it would increase the reliability is your honor had notice if it's an excited utterance but i don't believe whether on the street and so the nine one one call or it was on the street and observe the shooting and that's where the casing was found and then miss fundraising went back to her apartment which was nearby ok thank you you seem to about two it with respect to whether they're excited to be testimony your honor i think the the analysis would be the statements to investigating officers or testimony and that was one of the primary holdings of crawford itself so the now or your thirteen or fourteen and you're seventy four seventy five the record is replete with concessions by the government and the district court about how important his body cam video was to the fighting especially on charge one of our contention is that the commonality of nine millimeter  ammunition ties it in to charge for as well there are lots of reasons to disbelieve this one to us and so to say that this is some kind of slam dunk based on you know the fact that there was nine millimeter ammo here a nine millimeter ammo there is is really a she has a history of she's a conviction for lying to law enforcement so this is a pattern as demonstrated in the record she has violent felony convictions and so there are lots of reasons why putting her on the stand and asking her hard questions under oath in f united states district judge could definitely have made a and that's why the due process is really the crux of the due process violation in this case and i'm running out of time and the supporters and you know the questions i have one question your client was never charged with any of  possession versus discharge just i mean as a matter of common sense it's a big difference i was just here and one last question nobody's been mentioned in an oral argument but i gather that you do object i think it's condition six on internet usage