however false and prejudicial evidence saying that rose father told defense counsel that the gun was missing and defense house counsel then used that information and attempt to work a plea deal with the state aware of the plot to undermine the prosecution that placed counsel in an impossible position if that evidence reached the jury of arming the rebels innocent in the face of evidence position did the state during the course of the trial stress this evidence before the the jury and implicate defense counsel to be argued that  in he knows about the attempt obstructive prosecution that point and whether or not he i mean what it comes down to heat whether or not in the second part of the recording whether he refers to the phrase and making it clear when it man so that the they would know that the jury the jury just received state no but that was the hearing that he had he also ordered the rejection of any reference to the murder the good your client was  the jury things incarcerated where he admitted that he bought the gun back from detective bureau he also made numerous statements implicating himself in the plot to distort or hide evidence in order to avoid prosecution this evidence was properly admitted to show his consciousness of guilt defendant now challenges the admission of the final paragraph of the transcript however this paragraph contains incriminating statements defendant explains how he doesn't want  gun is missing so that he can gain an acquittal that he's counting on the fact that no one knows and that this is why he wants a speedy trial there is no one time for anyone to discover the missing evidence the trucker did not abuse its discretion in admitting this portion of the take defendant claims that the statement should not have been admitted because the implicate defendant in the defense counsel in the back to hide evidence however deference should be given to the trial court's finding that it was the defendant's father that was working the deal not defense counsel it's pretty evident from the tape what is going on here the defendant is angry he's angry at his father defending his counting on the fact that the gun is missing to acquittal and his father is you know for whatever reason felt like he should disclose this information in order to work a deal on his son's behalf and the defendant is angry about that that's pretty evident from the tape that that is what is what happened and the trial court finding to that effect should be given deference further there is no prejudice to the defendant by the admission of this portion of the tape there are two officers who identify defendant as the person who pointed a weapon at them and  two thousand and five and defendant is not challenging the most significant and damaging portion of the tape the part where he says i bought the gun back from detective girl this evidence combined with the officers testimony makes this case overwhelming and there is absolutely no prejudice with the admission of the final portion of this paragraph your interpretation of the final paragraph is that the defendant was not the one who was as far as defendant's claim that this somehow the kid defense attorney in the plot it does not even if you could possibly interpret this to mean that it was not the defendant's father and that it was defen counsel this doesn't implicate defense counsel of any criminal wrongdoing it merely states that he knew that he was informed that the gun was missing so what that doesn't mean he was in he was implicated in any criminal there's no merit to this claim that the jury might have thought that the defense attorney was somehow in on the plot to hide or destroy evidence it there's just no basis