happened with this from cancer she testified at trial is both the trial with the jury could not reach a verdict in the second trial in which the jury convicted mr spencer both counts the second trial in the course of problems first the defense never had any information that the prosecutor had called the state chemist and told her you had the right date here second there was a call live at the chemist prepared as well as e mails said that i think in her own words require that this case be overturned for a violation the first is that she said the second juror was interested in this issue they asked a question about it and if they had received this information it have a record right in which the person that indicated the same sample all the way through but of course we have another document from the boston police which is listed different incident  arrest and so was dispensers when he said perhaps those were the drugs affiliated with that same c c number i mean this isn't his burden to prove but it does cast lane on the accuracy of the documentary evidence  federal prosecutor saying this is the wrong date and instead of going to your supervisor saying that we need to follow the chain of custody here she picks up the phone to somebody and changes the date and that's i think  the every time someone in the prosecution tells a witness that the prosecutor thinks there's something wrong in the witness's testimony in the witness changes that has to be produced as are very well i think that's the sort of initial was that she thought that the issue the jury was concerned about was chain of custody it's actually not clear what they were concerned about because all they asked was do you have a sign your rights copy that drug certificate not do you have at the top of it if you look at the original certificate said eighty three twenty the final copy is that a three twenty three one has at the top is lab case number defendant agency et dates submitted and then it says below that there's a line i hereby certify that the founding item and it says he's sealed plastic bag off white rock powder has been examined with the following results and that's what the chemist is actually certified she is in fact certifying and what that the new republic is certifying are the facts of her testing of the drugs and that obviously the chain of custody matters but that's what she certifying to in this case it actually matters a lot less because in fact she testified because that this is this is evidence did not the certificates themselves did not actually even need to be introduced into evidence because she testified i got the simple it had these numbers on it and i did all the testing and this is what i discovered and i did a drug certificate to that effect but what's important is that all of that the numbers this is the number that the baby on it and the massachusetts state police lab number are all consistent across the the pieces of evidence so when i wanted to just mention it is what the defendant had at the time of trial to show that this really made no difference whatsoever and there wouldn't have been any hay that the defense would have made at the time of trial the defendant had the police reports of the regional march twentieth transaction it had the police reports of the rest of both defendants morrison was arrested on may twent believe and spencer was a resident may twenty sixth and even the theory that this could have been morrison's drugs that wrong date in the original drug certificate was made twenty six that was the date of spencer's arrest arrest and if you look at the s p two ninety five the information that has the wrong date of incident also has the place spencer was arrested and the time he was arrested which is four seventeen in the morning general practice it depends on what the actual issue was if the prosecutor if it if there's any suggestion that the prosecutor's getting the witness to change testimony just based on what the prosecutor said and not other evidence then we would turn it over  element or the credibility or accuracy of any evidence the government anticipates introducing in his case in chief i don't think it applies to either one of them as clairmont has testified she didn't know anything about the date of the incident it's completely superfluous g part of your theory of the case is that the chain of events you just described is not the only possible conclusion one could draw about what happened because of the gap in time between x and y that somewhere along the line defense no defense was there's no video there's no recording there's nothing it was this didn't happen that's really what that if you look at the defense lawyers closing it was there's no pictures there's no recording  in terms of his task so that was the defense theory this is the defense latched on to sort of at the end of the cross examination of the chemist as to why there were these two different drug certificates but again didn't make much out of them because rim has testified as to what she did she's questioned about the original certificate and just said i got this information and i made the change because the date was wrong she also testified i didn't know what the date was a date was to me what i knew was the c c number and the state police lab number those are the two things that i rely on because she's not percipient witness of the transaction she is merely the chemist who gets the drugs the drugs are marked and that's what i was trying to get to is the evidence that the defense had that it could have made hay with the problem is it had the s p two ninety five which shows that the error was actually done by a boston police officer in taking the drugs to the state police lab just route down the wrong date of the incident but remember also the defense hat and the jersey hat exhibit eleven which drugs with this c c number this state police lamb number i tested them and this is what i found so she's not involved in the transaction at all those are the that's the only part that she's actually testifying to and in the end the drug certificate also is superfluous because it's her testimony that really controls here but so the defense had all of these things and did not make any his of them other than questioning her about why she changed the drugs  problem this is what they did they called the submit agency and found out whether that information was right or wrong and so that's what she did she said she had done that on other occasions usually with  arrested but i could be wrong if there were drugs seized from him on that date it might raise a different question but here there was no drug seizure from spencer on the date harassed so that's what all of this and if you look at the date and th of these cases we don't but if for example let's say that he were associated with latin kings we might have transferred the case because we're doing something with latin kings in the neighborhood in this case it was based on the fact that he had a horrible cars how easily is it how easily can one see somebody who is looking at how can he see someone in a car driving by remember that this was march twentieth so it wasn't like it was the middle of the summer in the windows were down and everything else but it's it is a judgment call but that's why it's based on his experience he had seen this a number of instances but i think it's also you have to tie it to the testimony that sergeant detective came in davis well which was that drug dealers often work in tandem and so you had that piece and their experience together working over i don't remember how many years as drug investigators was that these were common techniques the jury could have believed it or not believe who took the case from suffolk was simply meeting with the suffolk d a s office so that's all we know that they had a conversation with the d a s beyond that there's nothing in the record as to whether he had a conversation of the cases that it would have to be that the federal government is retaliating against him for his exercise of a constitutional right so we would have to know something about it because because among other problem but it also seems as though then you're going too far back into why we bring cases in the first place without any objective reason for questioning that this was a legitimate case it seems to me that there has to be something stronger than what you would have even in that instance some think one said brutality against them i suppose if you had very strong evidence that the only reason he was targeted was they wanted to retaliate against him and all he wanted to do was make them happy possible but i still find that it's it just seems like it's too many step two steps removed the federal government did not engage retaliatory behavior it just took the case saw what the case consisted out and decided to take it without any of that information