violated this court's precedent that irrelevant overly prejudicial testimony and closing arguments about unsubstantiated unnamed drug organizations operating in mixed mexico and how they operate  bill the government's position is that i open the door however that was an entirely unfair position it was agent moran who testified on direct examination about this unusual hand undeniable inference was that that hand print was my client and it's brief the government on page fifteen says well this handprint has money was actually relevant because it's quote whether it was species or precluded from offer that's that's true your honor and that that moves me to my second point which is when the government says they want to show the jury what happened they didn't listen this handprint this morning which left the jury with this notion that it was my client such as well did you preserve those hand friends did you check to see if they were ms burns so they left that false notions sit with the jury and i was forced to get up in cross exam argued to the jury you may have noticed that they do not confirm that that's my close friend i sent my my fear was that they would argue that it was my client's  honor i certainly could have in a closing argument argued well you didn't hear any testimony from the government agents that they preserve those fingerprints and i could have argued that they didn't prove that it was ms byrn fingerprints but i think that it was only been doing half of my job i mean it's not nearly as powerful if i haven't actually questioned the agent about it because those jurors didn't reflect well why didn't mr barth stand up and i mean it's true the government agency didn't tell us that they preserve the singers it's true they didn't tell us that they compared to mr burns fingerprints but mr barth had an adequate opportunity to question him and get that information out so often about how defense attorneys question agents about why they didn't release fingerprints from the packaging or the other areas of the car i never did that all i did was dispel the notion that it was jennifer burns finger and that the government didn't preserve them in order to dispel that single false notion there was never any questioning about the packages in cells or any other part of the car why they didn't preserve fingerprint six sixty nine where your first two thing again and in this way the government was repeatedly connecting my client to drug organizations unnamed unsubstantiated drug the district court did not use the correct standard and i've laid that standard out it's in the united states versus rojas and the on the district court needs to look at this event its role in comparison to all other likely professionally altered and he still is somebody who did this must have known what they were doing i would have these weren't he was alluding to other people who were doing the exact and not ms byrne and he never compared ms burns role to the roles of those other people dealership that his contracts are behind locked doors and that they have a security system there and the only way any is fraudulent contract have been made was if it was from one a legitimate contract from his business although there may be kingpins although they may use cruise although there may be more culpable parties and although there may be people getting paid more even though she may be a minor player that doesn't mean she isn't guilty now that the government essentially wanted its cake and eat it too they wanted to use that as your relevant overly prejudicial testimony about drug operations in m however briefly would like to address the fourth amendment issue very briefly united states versus r v s do i think plainly shows that the methodology that needs to be used when and analyzing the fourth man explained is a totality of the circumstances standard and i think in this case it cannot be forgotten that there were when you look at the circumstances you need to look at factors that may warrant innocence or non suspicion as well suspicion in this case i list in my briefs several factors that i believe more very same finding the did before but i will assign the case to myself and the government if we do go back to district ordinary man we will not oppose him again roll judgment that didn't mean i think the judge was wrong but i do going to do that if the if this court does ring that i will handle it myself will take the position that position and judge wayland world made to finally make them we may be back up before but i did want to say that on that one issue and now i think i'm finished with that issue the most relevant things on this and one of your honor's authored that the native torrence case which is really really relevant to this but i think factually is what determines whether there was error or not and i think that's a part of this it's very very important the this in his motion that this will only cross examine government witnesses regarding the lack of fingerprints if the government is allowed to present the right structure in organization fast money that's the to pursue their expert testimony regarding structure but reserves the right to do so if the defendant opens the door by raising the issue of lack of fingerprints what happens at the hearing the judge in light of the fact that the government said we don't intend to get into structure evidence  whalen says unopposed motion to exclude structure evidence is granted but he specifically cautioned the defense against opening the door like the defense counsel did the exact previous week regarding the fingerprints defense counsel says if the government thinks that we open the door we want to sideline before you just launch into what happens after that opening statement really none of this comes up the government puts on inspector moran brought a motion and we need to keep it out never asked for it to be struck never asked to approach sidebar to say your honor the government is now open the door to something that we need to do now none of that happened no objection no motion to strike no trying to keep hand print on the on the gas tank corner none of this was readily observant the government moves on again no objection a motion to strike on cross examination of defense counsel stood up and said that he had to get into this me barely got into it you didn't have that they were prints does do your job with determining what happened he's attacking the through most of the investigation we come back on redirect we still don't get into it now we have another agent of testifies agents  door government counsels that i want to make sure we did exactly what we should have done the court warned against counsel not to go into it we asked for sidebar before we come back into it and how did we come back into it there were seventeen questions asked about by government inspectors and had been handled by mechanic this principle over it you don't know who's they are so we says two things one we didn't check or print because it was handled to burn probably didn't load it no one thinks about it that's not how defense was was confused when they were outside bar but the district court wasn't confused and that's not our problem district court judge three different times to say that they open the door for us and again we didn't introduce full fledge proposition that is not surprising that her hand grand isn't found in that gas tank because that's probably not what she did and that was exactly consistent with what the defense did or the defense theory was in this case that in closing argument that handprint was the most important piece of evidence and the happiest state in the world to the true trafficker was when the government got rid of the handprint because they would know whose it was nobody was thinking that  did a business case was that the single mother child of work goes now that it's not it's been some time with a friend eye on me and some bad people it may have been very western it may have been jose it may have been somebody else but these other hand prints not on the gas tank she had nothing to do with loading the gas tank she had nothing to do with switching the gas tank the only question was was she knowingly involved in this case and nothing that the government did relative to showing that the government spent a letter that we were going to try to introduce this kind of testimony so the judge tells the defense please plan accordingly and then the defense attorney does so he tries to remove the sting by getting into it and then on appeal the government takes the position get to get into this unless they open the door here a judge whalen said no government you don't get to get into this and we want to we said we wouldn't unless the physical pins the door they open the door you're probably sorry to get it now frankly i don't think it would have made a difference one way or the other i think the jury print i knew about him because they turned over a photo of it to me and they talked about it in the hearing on reasonable suspicion however i didn't move in let me keep structure evidence there fingerprint evidence issues out there and you cross examine on it then structure evidence comes in so they were forewarned ahead of time that getting into this fingerprint evidence was really against this court this circus pr gas tank well again your honor i said i don't know i think you i don't know if you can identify somebody from a handprint versus a fingerprint but but it's when you say hand print i mean you're talking about the conclusion that it was my client and and really i don't know what other conclusion they would come to because the government was saying that my client was responsible for the for the marijuana that was being brought into the united states  the government in its brief mentions in in line with the argument you just heard that you know i think of jack at the time it came out the question itself really wasn't objectionable i don't think it was objectionable and and the government's position is still that the answer itself was relevant to show the thoroughness of their investigation and what had happened they want to show the jury however once the answer was out there jumping up and objecting your honor i don't think that would have done a disservice to my client either i think the bell had been rung so to speak and me objecting at that point wouldn't have an wrong i think it would have actually ampl government's trial memorandum but i do remember they gave me a picture of the gas tank with a handprint but i didn't know that they were going to elicit testimony at trial how about the handprint perhaps an oversight on my part but i thought we all knew that if structure evidence was was deemed inadmissible we wouldn't be getting into handprint and i didn't limit structure evidence out of this case for that very reason i was very concerned about for obvious reasons  server important it extends your honor is saying that you believe that the air was harmless i respectfully would have to disagree i believe the nature of the evidence that came in eye contact and they put on no evidence whatsoever in defense other than trying to create reasonable doubt and that case was reversed i think indeed in this case the references to king pins and mastermind