ago in that letter there was a reference that i didn't understand there was a reference by the government to some potential plane error issue i don't know what that signifies because there's no contention  this case that the one substantive nonsense against you on raising was waived it was the evidentiary ruling there was an objection by defense counsel below so there's no i don't know where the finding their standard implicated in this case so i just wanted to clarify that point it seems to me that the real question in this case is one of prejudice there was a objection by defense counsel to the prosecutor on cross examination going into the details underlying mr thompson's convictions in the first of these two jury trials rather than simply eliciting the fact of the convictions opens the door to where penetrating for the well that's the government's argument but if you look closely what defense counsel simply did was saying mr thompson did you suffer these mail fraud convictions in the first trial and was that based upon you submitting some documents to all state in connection with a claim submitted by this mr le blanc there was also so that's that's the all he did all defense counsel did in terms of taking the sting out of it on direct he also took the sting out of mr johnson's obstruction of justice conviction in the first trial by simply saying were you convicted of obstruction of justice there was no delving into the details there was i mean to the extent that the government is suggesting there was delving into the details on direct it was simply a juicing the fact of conviction and that it was based upon mailings in connection with an in law of mr thompson it wasn't i can't see that as any meaningful opening of the door now why would you  would defense counsel i mean i thought he was trying to drop this thing right simply i think as a defense attorney you you have a jury there you know based upon and lemony briefing and indications from the he just said and that was based upon mailings in connection with mr le blanc you're in law there's a little bit of a hitch because as i read the transcript there was an objection to the question by the prosecutor now in the allstate fraud scheme that you prosecutor handed him a document and asked if this was the false document and far as i can tell there was no objection to the admission and evidence of the document well that's true your honor i think couldn't that be like christ talking about well i think this would be a strange way for the government to raise a waiver or plain error i'm just reading the transcript there was no objection to the documents i would think if mr roquet the defen attorney raised an objection as soon as the prosecutor signaled that he was going to go he got out the fact you were convicted of these offenses then the prosecutor signaled that he's going to go into the details of this ruling on the objection the r thirty nine and forty and so i think it would have been futile for defense counsel to interpose any further objections when the court signaled it was going to allow the prosecutor to go down that road what's what's document number fifty nine document number right and is the court asking these to that not perceive it's a waiver some type of plane or review there's just no objection to any of this well the first of all and in the government's brief responding to my opening brief the government does not argue plain error the government does not argue waverider i think it would be it would be inappropriate in a rule twenty eight j letter to raise plain error well what should the district court the trial court is that  objection but that's following on the heels of the judge having already signaled he's going to allow the prosecutor to go down that road is still going we don't know in court we just say stuff plain english and we all can talk ok so we don't have to just give they exude nals i mean the prosecutor asks a question there's an objection and although it's overruled the prosecutor does not restate the question or insist on an answer instead the prosecutor offers a document he does something different maybe he thought well even though even though i got the ruling i hope for i'm on thin ice here so he does something different he offers a document and then the expressly no objection now the defense attorney you can stand on his own two feet and say i object and no problem with that but it doesn't and then they go one from the document and this is where the defendant starts dancing wasn't it seems the defense attorney had an opportunity to object the defendant had an opportunity to get this done with and neither of them took their opportunity fact in this is on page thirty nine the prosecutor got from mr johnson you were convicted of felony fraud convictions you were convicted of obstruction of justice mr thompson says yes then the prosecutor asked now in all state fraud scheme that you discussed you submitted a number of fraudulent they false documents defense counsel i object your honor with regard to going into the details of this that is not proceeded everything that the court has just  stated and the district court overruled all permit a little leeway here so i would ask can easily tell a defense lawyer you have a standing objection you do that sometimes when is that the prosecutor instead of proving that the defendant committed the crime can prove he's a sleaze so that the jury convicts on the basis of character and here this important colloquy seems to b directly on whether the defendant is worthy of belief not his character it seems like it's really helpful to the jury and that's probably why the district judge allowed it just so that the jury can decide whether  go into the details underlying a prior conviction that the defendant has admitted and mr thompson admitted it he properly admitted it at the very beginning of his cross then the prosecutor crossed the line saying beginning him questions about the underlying details and then the district court in my opinion eroni asli overruled that objection allowed the prosecutor to go down the road of delving into the details and i just i'm a little taken by surprise that we're talking about plain error here because there was no i mean not until two days before oral argument was the subject raised it was the merits is what was addressed in my brief on the merits is what was addressed in the government's br that's dictum in rubio because that's not what they were talking about and in fact they did allow the prosecutor in that case to go into the details and i think that statement presented it is wrong for three reasons first it ignores an important distinction between priors in general that is felony priors under six zero nine and those which go to the truth and press this is what judge kleinfeld was getting to if the defendant's prior is for murder attempted murder robbery these are the cases in the defendant's free thoughts what the priors are for and it's appropriate to limit the prosecutor to the fact of those cases and not allow him to get as the robinson case says into some parade of horribles about what the defendant did but that's not true here this is under the second prong of six o nine the prior itself is for truth or falsity and i think that in those cases the prosecutor can in the discretion of the district court which was exercised here get into the details of those crimes because they bear on the defendant's case but i think that this there isn't a case either way one way or the other because this doesn't usually come up in this situation usually i think the the citation would properly be to rule six zero eight which allows exactly th sort of thing here it didn't come up because things didn't play out the way the prosecutor thought they were going to in limine a motion anticipated that we would offered the evidence of the prior instead the defense counsel reasonably took the sting out of it by offering it himself and then the prosecutor it was like one out of the brief did nothing more than read that to the defendant what the is own attorney had asked and i is standard cross examination there's a big difference between making a statement in front of your counsel which you could easily have hearst before and being faced by the prosecutor who you know is weighing back they're waiting for you to s wrong and that's the kind of pressure that cross examination is meant to inflict on a witness and that's exactly what happened here he started to crumble he contradicted himself and he contradicted himself at a point where the prosecutor hadn't really asked anything more than the defense attorney had and even if it wasn't for rule six o eight at that point the prosecutor is entitled to examine why are you changing your story up here you're not only lied before but you're equivocating on the stand i don't think a prosecutor is required to just sit back at that point and accept the defendant's equivocation at face value even if this was improper i fail to see how it could be anything but harmless or plain there because the evidence that this man has a lie on numerous occasions in this case in the previous case just goes on and on if you look even just at the cross examination the prosecutor present scene with any number of documents from this case in which the defendant is forced to say yes i back dated that now i wasn't telling the truth and that i lied in this i lied to the attorney general i lied under oath to the attorney general i lied under oath twice to a federal grand jury i lied to two sets investigators any harm that would have come from the slight expansion of the inquiry that was made on the allstate fraud was certainly