point i didn't see any objection there was no objection and at that point actually there was we we can see that they they never defense counsel never made an objection that nothing should be played which would be the sort of first action which would have been appropriate at that court then directed the court and talked about with the fact that there was no transcript but then even then the court said well actually i guess we could play back the testimony and then it directed the jury to go back and decide what portion the transcript they wanted to hear now at that point defense counsel still did not necessarily have a basis to object because it's possible that the jury was going to come back and have it unlikely but possible they would still want the entire thing alternatively they might want something that was for example the last bit of direct and the entire cross examination which means we might also not have a problem with that in terms of fairness to our client the interest we're trying to protect the jury did then was come back and say that they wanted to the beginning of cross examination and the jury answered yes right around the time she was being asked to identify the defendant so it was clear that it very initially wanted testimony in cross examination that it was clear that they plan wanted the entire testimony played and the whole nature of objecting is not simply that you do it before the judge made a decision but you do it in timely way so the judge has an opportunity to redress any problem with that decision or even if you're too late to then mitigate the decision the court has already made and here we're actually back to we he actually has time to prevent any prejudiced from this by playing both the testimony cross terms of what will the jury actually heard it seemed to me that they were both pro defense as well as pro government passive use that wasn't all biased or leave wasn't it wasn't all focused was the time went by this point she has said and this is what they didn't hear they didn't hear that three times earlier she said no and then she stood up and she was asked to look around do you see anybody and she looks around and then she by this point she is sitting there with picture of the defendant in her hand she has been guided through the fact this is one twenty three with me for the record she's been guided through the fact that she positively identified this person based picture earlier and now she's being asked to basically does she see anybody around here who kind of matches this picture and that's when he's the prosecutor the person sitting at the defense counsel table as the defendant is that the person that exhibit in that photograph then she's still not sure she says the boy looks like him but she was smaller so i don't think he's in here and then it's followed up by the next question whether the defendant in this case sitting at the defense counsel table is the person that exhibit and finally she comes around so they did hear that and that was damaging but they what they missed and then when she goes on to sort of state the facts of the case which is she saw him with the gun what they did not hear was a traditional function of cross examination which is this woman has a motive to lie and has an inability to remember not just with the defendant look like in the courtroom but to be consistent on a lot of other details in the case about the relationships of the people and where they had them and what they have been doing the fact that she was the other you know we have two members step back here  examination and what was left out here and what's important here is not just the eye witness but what we know about the jury there are so many notes in this case and those notes tell a story of a jury that is trying to find corroboration was the owner and driver of the car she knew martin sheen has been in the car before it's unclear that somebody would have known how to do that and they also want to know how did they find out about the gun and the police  this person was sitting but what's troubling them is why does this woman not you know any why is she so unclear on the details and how did the gun get there and that's what the story that those other notes tell us which really goes harmlessness i think that transcript and i think that's correct but the fact is that most courts actually get that part right that's sort of the first step and that first step didn't happen here and in hernandez i think what is what i case so much stronger than hernandez was hernandez it was a similar situation where the jury requested the testimony of one of the police officers the court first sort of gave him almost something to meet allen charge which was sort of go back and just keep thinking about it and rely on your memory so that was the first step that they did then the court said they were interested in the id and that's the problem there was that even though in response to that the court provided an entire transcript which correct but it wasn't enough because the risk of under emphasis was that the court was the jury was going to really focus only on that id the judge knew it because that had been communicated and didn't and yet the judge failed to admonish the there were still two people who identified this defendant i don't see how in this killing spree have one id one of the one of the worst ideas they could possibly imagine and if we look finally at what the judge had to say about th there's no reason stated in his reasons for denying defendant's timely request to say wait a minute i actually think we need to have the entire testimony the judge's comments are to any one of the record and i don't think i need to repeat those it's just clear that he first talked about untimely but it but as i responding to just one question it's clear that no prejudice had been and there was nothing to be undone it could have been done it could have been corrections and second of all not a case for example where someone's on the stand for three days or week and there's actually sort of an a time you need to pare that down to focus the jury and you could have other issues but this is it only for fifteen minutes to play back a quarter of her test it couldn't have taken more than an hour to playback her entire testimony and it took them more than an hour to actually be able to hear anything but anyway so this is a very short witness that would have been easy to do the court could have said just rely on your memories which would have been final that was i can see there was no objection to that or it could have been responsive to the court to the defense counsel's objection and simply playing the whole thing is the key to the case and they obviously had a reason for writing and about there being reasonable suspicion as to that suspect when they stopped that suspect has the right in this focused framework the right of the passenger mokhtar respond or to decline to provide the dedication or is that the law enforcement can't even ask i think the right not to respond and i think that false correct other we have a wants we want someone in that situation a passenger has been asked we're going to pick ation and response doesn't decline to the question but responds and gives law enforcement information which in fairly short order proves to be faults we don't know how short order well that's i'm conceding that point ok but once the once a passenger responds and gives information that turns out to be incorrect are we in a different focus you know i don't think so and i think it's because we don't know somehow that he's reaching came out in the passenger and in the scenario not only has the right not to respond they have the right give false information i think that the question then becomes whether the false information triggers a reasonable suspicion as to a passions or to whom we have no reasonable suspicion before because he was just a passenger and so then the question becomes i think a different calculus and that's what makes this different than just because this person is being detained after a traffic stop he is now his own detention because the traffic stop is ended and the question is whether that false was within his rights and asking for id during a traffic stop i think that's i did actually i'm not sure that i found a case and i have looked that says that you can ask passenger during a traffic stop someone who is not the you may proceed thank your honor and good afternoon my name is robert alman for the united states may it please the court i will address the issues raised so far the first has to do with the playback of the audio tape during the trial in the transcript the judge stated in making the court's ruling that the objection was untimely however as opposing counsel has pointed out so where does that leave us first does the court have an ability to play that part rather than all of a witness's testimony and i think the answer has to be yes because these decisions acknowledge that there is an amount of discretion the scenario the car pulls over of the driver and passenger check your idea checks out they go into the casino mr richard is then interrogated in it and some point during the conversation with law enforcement he tells them that the driver is pimping out the girl who's in the front seat right talk about your honor and then law enforcement goes in the casino and brings that pair out and sometime during that conversation does the woman who was in the passenger seat describe that richard may have had a gun i don't believe that's correct your honor the wishes of the sequence you have the sequence correct yet you have this rather lengthy period of time first officer prager activates his sirens lights after following that if at mr martin's vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger for approximately one block it turns into a casino parking lot still rather than stopping goes up the parking ramp and then stops yeah i think i have i'm not right we can secure these questions any concern about what might the nature of the stop what i'm what i'm asking about now was isn't it correct regardless of the amount of time that went on that ultimately the woman that richard had said was quote being pimped out tells the law enforcement that he's had a gun in the car you know your honor the  the day and i believe he was paying for a ride and mr reader was the front seat passenger and mr martin's girlfriend was any of the things that we just discussed read back to the jury   my point is that the first three or four times she couldn't identify this defendant who was what twenty feet from her that's a reasonable estimate of him in couldn't the climb when they said well how about the guy at the defense table how about the guy sitting next to the lawyer none of that's right back to the jury room well that the jury observed all that in a courtroom and i don't think anyone well that's thinking going to read back isn't it well not in th instance and i'll tell you why your honor because what you're trying to get at i believe is the prejudice of reading that only part in this reader's testimony but the theory that opposing counsel keeps talking about and which was offered to the jury w reader was not credible because she had a motive to implicate mr rich or because she was martin's girlfriend at the time well if that were the case then one would expect her identification of mr richard as the person who hel gun to be ironclad and immediate without any hesitation her failure to unequivocally identify him quickly in court as she was looking at him actually undermines that theory and prejudicial because the only issue i've heard so far that this is supposed to have prejudiced the defendant on is identification and that's simply would not help the defendant in that vein there's no question that mr richard is the person who was sitting in the back seat where the gun was found mr schneider was the other person in the backseat and martin was the driver it could not have been anyone but the defendant who was identified positively by the police officer who testified so i don't understand where the prejudice comes then it sounds like a great deal but when you boil it down to what the defense theory was this didn't hurt the defendants or you know one would expect if it had that there would be a great deal of cross examination on this issue because more damaging to the witness than the crossed it may well be your honor but i would urge you to read that the cross examination as opposing counsel stated is not lengthy and i urge the court to read it in its entirety and make a judgment about whether there any significant prejudice arising from the fact that the jury didn't hear that twice those minutes mere brevity argue for its complete reading it's a factor to be taken into account and i think the better practice would have been to do  better practices also and the court did you this currently to play it back in the presence of the court and the defendant counsel which he did do but the the manner in which the several is was was unfortunate but again we've conceded that the standard discretion you know sometimes when you're you're prosecuting it's you try to clean up the record you best you can and it's the think it's not going to hurt should read it all back how can it hurt you agreed your honor i don't know whether the appropriate absent a substantial prejudice so you have an error by the court but it can be harmless which is really what i'm arguing here and actually i want to go quite that far because there's no per se rule that would have precluded the court from playing that part of the testimon i don't recall whether that was in the read back and i apologize for not rereading that before i walked up here was part of her testimony i don't recall whether it was partly i understand your honor but again this point necessarily resolves i'm prejudice and what opposing counsel stated was that this is a jury attempting to find corroboration for readers statement the defendant possessed the gun in the car and there was plenty of it first the witness who told police in the first place that the gun was under defendant's seat was mr schneider when police looked for the gun it was exactly where schneider said it was and it was exactly where reader said it was reader also gave a description of the gun and the gun matches that descript and finally when he was interviewed the defendant admitted that he may have touched the gun he did deny that he touched it that day but he said he may have touched it in the past in fact given those facts i think the crab ration was ample and when you boil it down under the circumstances you really can't say that the failure to merely read back part of the direct examination and all of the  this defendant on this record and that's why i don't think relief is necessary or appropriate on that point your honor asked about that diaz case and i'd like to address that as found that the detention regardless whether it was on lawful should not result in suppression of the gun because the gun in the discovery of the gun was not caused by the detention regardless whether it was a model and that goes to your point about the information they got that data on the car was lawfully stopped because it had a fake registration sticker that's rammed anybody's disputing that i think it's also clear under diaz that the police length of that detention you know at some point does that become on lawful and even if it does did that potentially cause police to find the gun and the answer of both is no the detention didn't cause discovery of the gun and that's actually a point that i believe was misrepresented to the magistrate although he ruled correctly on it the defendant did not say anything in that interview that prompted the police to search the car and i point to page eleven of the excerpts when they moved for a hearing on this issue that was the representation made that isn't correct he said that there was pandering going on and in order to investigate that other police went into the casino found the other occupants of the car including the driver m reader and mr schneider they brought them back and at some point after that according to the testimony approximately one to two hours after the stop mr schneider stated that there was a gun in the car they want interrogating him about a gun and they didn't know that if you look at the photographs you have a very clear idea that they are on the record you are sixty sixty two and sixty four i believe that the photos of that so that's why i say the magistrate was correct in determining that the gun didn't flow from the tension regardless whether that tension was lawful but i also contend that the detention was lawful because after you get past the brand and diaz now you're into the  case and police didn't simply stop the car that's not the entire context for what happened next there was that inordinate delay and officer prager testified that in his experience as a police officer when you have an inordinate delay of someone pulling over it means either that someone in the car is going to bail which means attempt to escape or someone in the car is trying to hide contraband and those two concerns are not particularize to the driver they go to every occupant in the car he testifies to that point he just ninety and ninety one of the record so police have more than this fake registration sticker when they pull that car over and what happens next is extremely all four occupants three of the occupants give him correct verifiable identification suspicion diminishes as to those three and what does he lets them go the only person not diminished is mr richard and he didn't merely refuse to give identification from it if we misled officer praeger by giving him false information now at that point under high bell you have requires him to produce correct identification at that point so for either of those reasons that should be affirmed and then finally i didn't want to address the cross appeal least briefly in my remaining time the issue is whether the court erred by finding that robbery under the nevada statute does not require a threat of force and it rests on the court's misinterpretation of the nevada state case called hayden five thirty eight p second five eighty three hayden quote so much earlier case says that robbery is a threatening word or gesture as in common experience is likely to create an apprehension of danger i think that's definitive i think that answers the question and i think that means there was e here when judge made hand decided that you know that a statute did not require a threat he looked at him and said well that's just discussing the old english common law because the original language comes from blackstone counsel the just you just raised the question as to whether the categorical analysis can ever save you if the language of the statute is so broad that it goes beyond well i would i would agree that that where the principle here in this case had been wrongly decided under that property problem but since it wasn't i think we're still within the law here and i need to make two more points very quickly  is there is adverse to forty that the court has been aware of adverse to the government's position it's united states versus eckerd nine thirty six f thirty four forty four four fifty in the context of a block berger analysis the court  supreme court case it's not referenced in acar or it is accurate in any of the briefs or any you know it isn't your rules would you please before leaving the court room provide counsel with a copy of that site plus three copies for the bench  would require this court to sort of part company with an investor in court about the breadth of its own law it has a reason for having a very broad law which is it wants to sustain convictions under for robbery which is at odds with our purpose here  trying to sort of put him in perspective for a terrible idea but the truth of the matter is that if you have a gun case with no physical evidence linking the gun to the defendant you need to have somebody and importantly here at the jury wanted to hear everything that's what their note says it to ninety eight of the record then when they were asked to be more specific they said they were interested in the i d now the jury doesn't have the testimony in front of them they said about from the from the sidebar to the beginning of cross examination and what we're actually got knocked off of there was a good portion of the field id so that they actually didn't actually get the request filled in addition to being deprived of important information which the jury cells said that they wanted they wanted the cross examination this jury couldn't have been more clear about that somebody wanted to hear it and then they redacted that part will hear argument in the last case of the afternoon which is united states versus chap