heavily in some organisation delivering cocaine from south in order there was also evidence that was excluded as part of what had been property and the defense was prepared to present it at the time of trial down question is what's wrong with a court saying you know well yeah you you did do something for example twenty years ago and the guy threatened you no no no that thousand dollars looking at it from another standpoint is nine hundred thousand dollars the reality is it's probably somewhere about one hundred to one hundred twenty five thousand dollars based on the testimony of the government's expert  contraband worth several hundred thousand dollars well several hundred thousand dollars probably not a lot of a lot cheaper ways there get retribution and only was great risk and if i make money in a highly sophisticated testified to is expertise to organizations in the to you want to area and we wanted to examine as to whether or not the far as organization was operating down there and also some questions having to do with the bearing of lost in the nature of that is that what the government relies on show that it's not prejudicial involves two areas that are themselves not supported by the record one is the notion that this is impossible because of nine hundred thousand dollars worth of drugs but that's fallacious because it wasn't one hundred thousand in the past and there were people who knew about it and then to restrict the scope of the evidence he could put on in that regard to receive the information he gave the fact that there were specific people who knew that he'd given information that those specific people had made threats that's seems to me that the district court ruling would have been perhaps more logical out of ruled the entire subject off limits but through it happen limits reviewing the evidence as i was preparing for my reply brief answering freaks i tried to reconstruct what would have happened you know i i didn't not only think at the time that it was appropriate but i thought so when i was even justifying it later when there rebuttal i thought i was commenting on the state of the evidence based on the firm belief by the government which i think the record is replete with our efforts in describing and characterizing that as not being cooperation the judge's ruling making the statements and again i just mentioned to you and explain where my frame of mind and state of mind was at the time that i made those misses those comments but i would also like for the court to consider when you look at this willfulness issue that the government from the very beginning very much about helping the planet find out whether or not this was a legitimate defense we were very interested in providing discovery and the record is really well the record shows that we had continuances in order to afford the government an opportunity to go to the comics i mean we provided everything we can get our hands on because we need to were very interested once we knew that he had in fact in a formal cooperate or in finding out whether or not there really was some possibility of a but what we found after giving them everything that we had but for the text and the court knows because it's still sealed you have a reason why the tech not turned over and it was not information that would have helped the defense other than that they had everything else that we had and government's willingness to accept responsibility and i think the court understands that i am now aware and appreciate that my comments were inappropriate but the final analysis went trying to form some sort of remedy is whether or not the statement inappropriate references to those were two statements and it was a very small it wasn't even something that i spent a lot of time on it wasn't something i had even intended to spend time on it was something that came out during the rebuttal and when you look at the amount of evidence that was compiled against the challenge so much on the issue of his motive really when you look at the cross examination if you know that area was pretty much left untouched his credibility failed when it came to his explanation of his whereabouts how he purchased the car the circumstances under which he received that vehicle and his lack of knowledge of the of the modifications in the end the crossing if you the government did not really attack our motives and when you come to looking at what the evidence that w you know it's not just that the defense can raise anything that's fantastical and has to be fantastical and relevant and in and arrest if it's not relevant it doesn't come in and you can have a ton of evidence that somebody felt fear of time hearing about a lot of the evidence that was very experienced all in collateral from chile issues that were critical to their determination of guilt or innocence we would have gone into a lot of information in any haggling over the extent of the defense cooperation we would have had  and they would be forced to to have parse that out basically in separate that from the overwhelming evidence of guilt i and is going to believe that the overwhelming evidence of guilt would have prevailed but that find if you find your honour's that the court was community air and excluding the others when you ask yourself whether or not any of that which affected the jury's decision consider siddur the following you have an  thousand and the street value is nine hundred thousand when it comes to value and i think the defense counsel is suggesting that depending upon were serious fell within a certain organization that would determine how much impact that financial loss had on him but the truth caught in so why would they choose and that is trying to you know why would they have done a situation where there would have been an issue involving distribution maybe farther down the road where they can contact law enforcement and you know have vehicles he did not need the truck and when you read the testimony if you look in read the testimony how he was cross examined his demeanor even off of the paint in the transcript not credible jury heard it's another thing to say i was in form in one thousand nine hundred five and i was subpoenaed and had to give information on a deposition on an asset forfeiture of the million dollars for a particular person that person found out about it and t almost certainly before the car across the border the others and the other thing i'd like to point out in that regard is that again posing that question a court is yes and supposing why it is that this really all should have been as you requested and it should have retaliate against mr graves why would they do it six years later why would they do it and lose one hundred thousand dollars and putting some real emphasis on the act and the court when ruling on it basically ruled and there wasn't comments by the court