one this court in that gees or guys know precisely how to pronounce it held that it's improper to make that kind of argument if the witness is not someone who speaks you'll be within the power of a particular party harley garcia marino is a person in the republic of mexico we had no subpoena power over her it was impossible for us to subpoena her to bring her to trial and it was impossible to pigeonhole her to come to trial because the whole point of the defense was to blame her so what the government did was they acquitted guilt with the failure to call a witness that he couldn't possibly have called that's point number one and i think that this court's decision also supports that when he says that when you going to make a missing witness type argument like that the makes needs to make a finding that you are within the power of the individual producers and i think that the two williams cases floating around here the williams case from the seventh circuit says exactly the same thing there's no so what we have here is testing which is really the i think the most clear statement that the golden rule doctor in applies in the context of criminal cases and testing is a case from the seventh circuit i don't think anyone's criticize that case or disagree with it i have an argument and the first whether it starts at page six zero three of the expert of record is the prosecutor's as where in the heck is carla magdalna garciaparra so there's no question that the point of this whole argument is that the fence did not produce this witness then he goes on to say that that's one of the things that the jurors would have done if they were in midst of the scars point they would have called family members they would have done this they would then that all these things implicate the man and you know from the point that mr discard w arrested up to the point of this trial apparently according to government he should have been volunteering this information to the government he has a fifth amendment right not to do that if it came out right and not to demonstrate that he has a closer to election with carlos garcia marano he has a this is this court's decision and williams i think decided by both parties ninety five second and five ten broadly describes the fifth amendment interest saying that none of these meetings actually changes the burden less the prosecutors comment uses the defendants at the moment privilege as evidence against him well the evidence against mr this car according to this argument is this failure to volunteer this information so i think that clearly implicates that the man and from the day that he was arrested all the way up to the time that he was actually in trial it's also important to bear in mind that the record makes clear that the government never asked him to help them find carla magdalna garcia marino and that's at page four thirty six to thirty seven agent conrad said that she never reversed in that case i think this is one of the better from the defense perspective for us cases that i've seen if you look at the evidence here you've got a guy claiming that he was given the car by somebody he was sent on an errand and he was going to a particular place and i like a lot of these cases where you just have the final step demoting they actually brought in his uncle who was the owner of the car shop and he testified yes i did send him on the errands mr the scars the testimony was that he picked up the car burger king from his girlfriend carla he brought in his cousin to testify and that doesn't testified yes he does have a girlfriend then carla and i drove into the burger king to meet with her and in addition to that you also have the owner of the car parts store on the u s side of the border coming  kept changing his story which he was asked the primary inspection location he says he's coming over to buy auto parts a specific auto part is a car which he's confronted with that statement you know you don't have a hard and that's what we the government did it and paid for you three to one idea in the argument that you know look at the story when he's confronted with something it was all about the reaction that the government wanted to talk about was what was reasonable and as we directly opposed to it so that's an issue for a jury to describe without an improper closing argument getting in the way with respect to the the issue of of the reflectors and what not you know that was  well and exactly the agent who testified that the reflectors were up for a particular car or rough notes it was pointed out on cross examination didn't say anything about the specific car it's just that a honda and that's at page five hundred seventy the extra records so there clearly