lousy a fast i think if it's the opposite of the way you write or just i think it would be probably allowable i think the problem with the way the prosecutor presented that particular argument to the jury was not apparently one of the best criminal defense lawyers in the circuit didn't think it was so bad or else he was trying to create a loophole i'm surprised that there was no objection well indicated the evidence did not support this loophole well it seems to me counsel wrote really what was happening is that the defendant had a theory and he is entitle to a legal instruction and then the prosecutor argued to the jury to disregard what the court told them the law was by characterizing it as a loophole so he was basically saying disregard what the judge told you about this defense is just a loophole that he's trying to squeeze through now is that appropriate argument i don't think that was the argument that was made by county or i would say that it was in response to comments by mr article that the government's case was overblown that it was overreaching he was arguing three different conspiracies saying that in this case mistress condoned was involved in conspiracy number one conspiracy number two so to characterize the government's response as this is a loophole i think was a fair characterization of what the defense was i don't think it was an attack on the individual himself as set out in the case re a person if we call that individual the biggest liar you'll ever meet or call the argument that was made  by the story that was presented by counsel as a bunch of trash that was in it he called it a loophole which is in fact what it was while sosa presumption of innocence or loophole so why not get up and argue that that's just a loophole that these people are presumed to be innocent we all know the evidence is here i would agree if he had jumped up and started arguing the presumption of innocence bolton we certainly would have a plain error here was what's the difference between that and his his his legal defense that he was entitle to have an instruction on which is that if there are three separate conspiracies and he invites doesn't charge him with the with all three of those then he has to be acquitted well i think he did have an opportunity to make that argument and i think councils are the government's response to rebuttal was exactly in response to that very argument he called that particularly characterized that particular argument that particular defense as a loophole and i think although it certainly has a negative connotation it's not so negative that it goes beyond the latitude that's allowed to be made in closing argument in this particular case he was commenting on that theory he wasn't saying disregard it he was he was characterized as he sought and argued the evidence to support it the single conspiracy in this particular case and i think the evidence that supported the single conspiracy is quite compelling there was evidence very early on that it was in fact the defendant mr s condoned with introduced both alex and gordo an individual he says there's no room here in terms of the conspiracy and i think mr alvarez argued that in his closing i would grant the court that he certainly made reference to that term loophole but he didn't call it he didn't say a legal loophole he just used the word loophole in connection with his argument and the characterization of the defense of marriage case and i don't think it rises to the standard that the court has indicated which is that it would somehow seriously affect the fairness the integrity of the hold you just receiving i don't think it rises that level it certainly could could could be characterized perhaps as some type of error or better judgment should have been used in making that but i don't think it it's welcome way that the single the fence that council had in this case because and as i think judge reimer pointed out there was substantial evidence in this case  not only of the other witnesses but by mr preston don't himself he confessed when he was arrested on january twenty fourth about his involvement and at no time did he say that he tried to characterize i was involved here and not here and i think mr alvarez made that very argument in his closing rebuttal in this particular case so i would grant the court certainly perhaps a better choice of words could have been made that up but i certainly don't think it rises to the level of plain error and i also think as was pointed out by the court this was not some new defense attorney this was a probably one of the most experienced attorneys in san diego criminal attorney of this any missed reston don't in this particular case he didn't see it as something objectionable he didn't negative connotation when he was questioning her talking to yours about this and his characterization of a as a loophole doesn't seem to have the have bothered him somehow poisoning the panel as to this loophole idea and i think mr alvarez grabbed onto that if he had made that argument perhaps in his opening closing started talking about loopholes and be prepared for this loophole the best perhaps there would be a more egregious reading of the closing and don't responsible and accountable for something he wasn't involved in there's three conspiracies here and he's not guilty of one of them he's guilty of two but not this one the one that's charged and i think the argument prove at trial the one conspiracy alleged in the indictment and the answer that question is no and the government's argument was going lupul over and over and over again simply exacerbated yet the injury problems it had in the first place and jury right before they began deliberations i believe makes it actually more harmful than if it was brought up earl