district court rulings trial as well as the court's ruling on his motion to suppress and i would like to begin by dressing that motion to suppress the government's argument against mr barak position focused almost entirely on the question of whether mr bargain is a reasonable expectation of privacy in that truck lot but well we contend that mr vargas did have such an expectation of privacy a reasonable one in the lot that you read it what the government first the officer shrieks into the gated truck that's the part i'm talking about not i want to put the other things because i actually think the whole thing hinges on that that when the officer does that sneaks in behind the truck or whatever it or it's the owner of the property that has to be protected interests there it's not the individual tenants or your honor i think the answer to that question is that the individual people that have if it was an apartment certainly in the common area and there was a dog being brought a person it outside the apartment door under jarvey that would be a violation of the fourth amendment and what they're doing is because it's right up on the door if the dog is just wandering around the lobby of the apartment but the of apartment owner can't do anything but the dog doesn't do that the dog actually right adjacent to mr vargas is a tractor trailer and in that respect i believe mr barch suspects are confusing the for now i want you to stick to the first entry yes because if we can establish whether that was legitimate or not that wasn't legitimate then i i think your argument as i understand it is everything else that happens there after is tainted but if it was legitimate or at least if mr vargas isn't the person whose interests were infringed then we have a different problem your honor we would take the position that mr varga ultimately ended up having an issue with the law and would want working was doing in there and of course along with an officer getting in there without permission is the only way the dog comes in at all everything comes because he's in there and he sees the truck and then he gets the dog in matter for a couple of reasons i don't think that's true i don't think he could have seen mr parks his truck where it was through this fence in that way and identified it secondly he wouldn't have been a able to get the only reason he's able to get access for the other people to com e he was already in there and waved to some other guy to push a button to let those other people in if he wasn't in there there's no reason yes they could have even gotten the dog in and the dog is the key to this whole thing to getting into mr vargas  so that's how i do that i think that the involvement of the narcotics canine here a separates this from the situation we had with a lock and key in concepcion which is a different situation here they're bringing the dog and the supreme court has said that bringing a dog for separate canine sniff in an area that's open to the public be it a hallway or a porch that is a violation of the fourth amendment and people who are leasing a spot jones that's not that's not the way the cases are written they're not well i mean with it well jones does jones does deal with a vehicle jones involved a vehicle that's out in the public or anyone could go there and put their hand on it and placing a tracker under that car you know public rights totally public means that intrusion violates the fourth amendment it's the intrusion and i believe the intrusion there is arguably less intrusive than going into a place  person has paid to have a truck secured or going in there without permission sneaking in there in fact and then getting a narcotics dog to go up in snoopy's vehicle which he has paid to have secured in that area and so i believe that there's the direct trespass blinded the court who said didn't go away after cats and there's the reasonable expectation of privacy in mind that we are not supposed to be blended and i'm not sure where the tr vargas property place i understand that there aren't in fact clearly marked parking lines in this spot that is just sort of the open lot and people can park whatever if law enforcement goes into the common area where they're not allowed for the purpose and investigation and ultimately conducting a canine sniff which is what they were doing that's what they were going to do when they do that in commonly used basement and we didn't find as you were suggesting that sweeney had an individual enough interest to keep people out this well i think the one of the problems here is that the old timidly the the  narcotics canine isn't the issue in that case it you have but there's the i think adequate question do you have a protected interest the dog you know isn't inside the truck right the dogs wandering around the truck and i'm not interested in the unit building or other kinds of meat condos have a common you know well the commons junction area sure the commonly used area here it was not in the sweeney case i should say not here w meant to seclude any particular piece of the owner's property that he put there for the specific purpose of having secured that's the difference for mr vargas just drop in this area the purpose of the areas for mr vargas is not to just use it commonly for some sort of common purpose but to secure a particular piece of a personal property i understand but the but i think that's when the officer sneaks in takes a picture of it he's not like physically touching the truck he's back taking a picture of the truck which then get lot to investigate a piece of property that the truck that mr vargas has specifically and intentionally put there for the purpose of protecting it and none of the other cases are only not opening it up he's just doing something that's roughly in plain trespass and in this instance being able to get access to mr viruses truck and take a picture of it for law enforcement purposes is similarly equivalent to what happened in jones that he can't take that picture from anywhere else there no evidence saying that he can yes to get in there for that purpose and what i think is important this gets back to your question about sweeney is the purpose of that public area is to protect a certain piece of property and keep it secure and that's not the case in sweden nor difficult case for mr vargas in terms of simply the appearance of fairness in the ability to conduct the defense to start with a couple of those there was evidence available that the cooperat witnesses uncle was in the drug trade had access to the truck lot knew where mr vargas his truck was all of those things there was a third party alternative suspect that could have been hiding the items in mr parks that something that can happen and make sense denying that opportunity altogether not allowing those questions denied mr martin violated the confrontation clause it was a source of bias in terms of the uncle a source of a reason t weather was incredible and that there was an alternate suspect that by itself is enough to reverse but that was only one of many of the things that happened cross examination of the central witness mr winter was cut off in tired but you know the third party culpability doctrine it's easy to say somebody else did it and i wonder what your strongest evidence is would have been if you'd been able to pursue it t uncle was actually involved enough that he was i think well the strongest evidence was he had been in his truck the uncle's truck or in the transponder young t yes he no it wasn't permitted at all and then it's just made worse by all of these other errors when the cutting off of cross examination altogether when all that was being requested was a sidebar to clarify what he was talking about because what happened was for some reason the court thought it was inappropriate to ask a witness did you lie during this december interview with the agent i still don't know why but whatever the reason then changing the more specific questions about what was that but other questions we never could get to that we would have gotten to in other circumstances questions about whether there were more serious charges in the state of ohio that got dismissed because he was going to cooperate against mr vargas questions about the fact that he had admitted extensive additional federal criminal conduct that were never charged as a result of cooperating against mr vargas we were able to question whether or not after he's repeatedly lying to law enforcement he gets caught in the midst of the meat in the beginning of the cross it just comes out he's lying and then he keeps going back to the old monster of well all i have to do is tell the truth and if i don't i'm in trouble being able to ask jury to see is answer the question where you've already lied all these times and you still got your deal you don't really believe that you have to tell the truth to you those are essential and important questions not just to be able to ask but to have the jury  answers and all of that was eliminated all of that was prevented by this cutting off of cross examination in a series of other interruptions and errors cumulative interruptions continually for the defense district court is coming up with the range reasons to suggest we're violating the rules for example you can't ask approximately what time is somehow an inappropriate question but when the government asks approximately what time it wasn't an inappropriate judge normal at least tuned to jury trials your own two jury trials and i will tell you this what happened in the vargas case was much much distinct violation of course amendment for the officers to enter the truck yard and examine his truck at first they just took a photo of the truck that's that confirmed that was the one that was at issue can i ask you whether through the chain may not have been visible from through the fence was the name on the side of a truck as well as the phone number on the side of the truck which helps further identify the truck is the one that the cooperator has identif officers from entering the common lot and looking at his truck contain a photograph of his truck the district court found that mr vargas is you know it didn't have a property interest in that truck yard such a lease that i know of also says that the residence housing units can't have contraband in their units but those are not regarded as waivers of the fourth amendment if the police want to search the c s a residen apartment they have to go get a warrant just like anybody would and so i think you're over reading this significantly well now you may have other reasons on i think the reason i bring up the lease is because it goes to mr parks is diminished expectation of privacy in that in that yard i don't think so and i'm worried about your conflation of the supreme court found that there was no demarcation of one spot versus another it was an open truck yard the truck was uses as they could and given that there was no i don't know trespass there we don't think that government about rationals investigation about what he what his approach was about what he was likely to say that the defense hadn't gotten directly from the government and so i think the notion that this man had to be you want to now want some rule that defense counsel has to cross designate every expert that on the government's list just in case this comes up whether they're mostly what would happen i mean whether there's a reciprocal discovery going to say to cross examine him you know i i think it's a matter it was a matter at that point of being deep in the trial the last day of evidence and the district done for the government that the defense wanted to call him now ultimately however i do not even if there was an error in the district court excluding rashmi specimen i don't understand what the prejudice would have been to the defendant because rash time that whether said he met vargas at the truck yard and received the cocaine from him there might have been some play in the joints in terms of when the transponder showed the gate was open and when the witnesses  there and when the calls but that was a common that problem was common across the board in other words the anticipated testimony of rationally for the defense as i understand it was not going to place vargas wouldn't let him ask questions that are pretty routine questions to impeach a witness credibility and then just sort of went off the deep end to the point that he comes back but only for impeachment not for really  that either prevented counsel from impeaching him or that precluded some area of well he just shut him off from exploring that december that statement he says we're not going to talk about this anymore and then  court specifically designated simply impeachment regarding the december twenty fourth change report as the only permissible area of process that went so why would he have had occasion to do that if the scope of the government's motion was just bring him back for impeachment process reopen on the government's motion and that talks about further impeachment so why would the judge have any reason to grant more than the government is asking for without at least telling people well only other areas that he said he wanted to go into were also impeachment and when when counsel finished the this the location of the prints or within the plastic wrap that would suggest that that vargas's print had not been left your honor to begin with the the fingerprints in this case don't render this harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if you go back and look at the argument there's arguments on both sides about where those prints were the defense position where they could have been on the outside of this big roll of plastic the government tried to say otherwise and it was somebody else's print on there too so the fingerprints aren't enough when we have everything that happened in this case with respect to the suppression i want to say this in that truck you are a portion of that lot which ever fortunate one was mr corroborated not just that they when they were at the lot but there was disagreement with twitter about what was at the hotel and when they went to the hotel we could have used those same plot points of the government had given us i have never even thought of the possibility of having to send them a notice and say of if you decide not to do with your just told me you're going to do i'll call it witness it doesn't happen wait a minute that's not to that's not totally true that happens and many times in trials very odd that i never have i seen that happen with the same expert witness we usually have different experts you trade with the specter of competing with and then ultimately with mr whether there were sources of might seems to me a question about the rules what rule are you relying on for the just i am not relying on any particular rule i marvel at other than rules the rules determine how you have to designate expert witnesses and whether you need to cross designate the opponent's expert you can't just say we're operating in a r here we need to think about what's actually in the rules your honor i understand that we're in the situation that we were in and the practical realities of that situation we did not believe that it was any violation of the rule the party knows what he's going to say that we were going to call that witness to say the very thing that they told us he was going to set and so we do not think that the spirit of that rule so everybody know what the testimony is going to be in the opinion will be was going to be