i knew something was in the car but i don't know what it was he said specifically i know there was something in the dashboard but i don't know what it was that's specifically what he was told and that's what he said ok i was told at least not smuggling something that something was going to be in the dashboard so this court has repeatedly sending in different opinions that to get the joint struction there has to be a high probability and i'm quoting from alvarado of the existence of the fact in question and purposely contrived avoiding  high ability that this was going to be drugs other than he asked specifically not to be smuggling drugs i think it was were found clearly a deliberate in ignorance instruction with a green program at that point because it's reasonable and a high probability that is the testimony of a very during our time so it's possible that the anything is during her post custody interview the material witness never mentioned that anyone spoke to her and this was a stipulation from the  notes inspector that interviewed her so it was you know her dispy various statements about you know she spoke to someone picking up on the first time of trial and was contradicted by her initial interview with the agents the argument is joke there is something that could have been argued both ways the government just think should not have been interviewed to join stretching let me ask you this and i'm not sure it goes directly to the jewel instruction question you said two things that were slightly in conflict you said that the smuggled person in her initial interview did not mention having spoken to anyone in the car and then you said a trial she contradicted this by saying that she has now not offense for the misdemeanor of simply knowing that there was someone in the vehicle here the only difference between the misdemeanor offense of bringing someone to the border knowingly bringing someone the border and then the felony which he got a minimum mandatory three years for is the specific intent to violate the immigration last and what the what the argument is here is since the knowledge in this case could have been based on a jury instructions on a high probability  any liens and in the vehicle and failure to do something to disclose it it does not necessarily follow that mr leavitt would have had the intent to violate immigration laws indeed he testified that he had the intent to violate the customs which is not the intent required for the thirteen twenty or the felony conviction so the jury could have come to the conclusion well there's a high probability and healing but and he did nothing to do  is that knowledge found beyond a reasonable doubt they were back in the you find it hard to find as to high probability and avoidance but beyond a reasonable doubt yet and knowledge that they then conclude i think that knowledge is beyond a reasonable doubt knowledge really was in the car then i wouldn't be able to argue he should have gotten a lesser included of offense that he didn't intend to bring that in violation immigration laws but if the knowledge element even proven beyond a reasonable doubt is based on just the high probability combined with the liver actions to avoid then it doesn't necessarily follow that you have the intent to violate the immigration laws because there could have been a high probability of many different things so or something else i don't honestly know obviously from my perspective an arms with how how how big it would be i think there was testimony actually that it was  question to which i don't know the answer and i may or may not be on the record really know how many feet or inches it is door to door that is to say how much how much space it is vertically that's how the record is only where the person has to lie down and how much they've been used have to be scrunched  they shut the compartment on top of them and they're basically in a mini moving coffin in the front of the vehicle call from basically lean out like a cop and just get in there and ok so i think her hands over towards the passenger side door and then her legs continue in back of the instrument panel correct ok questions he wasn't going to make any inquiries for he basically said i know that's a long i can't i'm not supposed to have people cross the border the united states i know that people are smuggled across the united states for money but i'm not going to ask that question but i'm going to smuggle whatever is in that vehicle i don't care what it is well that's not quite true i'm not sure this is half of your face he said i don't want the drugs he didn't say i'll just i'll take whatever rachel i don't want to do minimum mandatory sentence for the financial gain count as for the transport under the guidelines i believe he gave the low end which was thirty three months the parties agreed to it not to fight over it  reversed on them in many towns but somehow did not reverse on the others if that were the case yes i believe the flooring then is appropriate but based on the issues that really discussed most of today that it's a package deal convictions mandatory but just going to the specific example of what mr stratton was told or thought it was always your going to be smuggled something someone was never mentioned he never in the other side says but he admitted that he understood the drugs and people understood that in a general sense i think we all understand drugs and people are the most common things that are smuggled across the border that doesn't mean when someone tells you you're going to be smuggling something in the dashboard of the vehicle that there's a high probability that that's going to be a person those are two different equations and that's the thing there is nothing about the circumstances of this case about what the other individuals did that indicated in the conditions of the car that indicated that it person was going to be in there strikes me this is exactly the kind of case that requires the instruction you're complaining about because he just he said look i don't please don't burden me with the knowledge of exactly what it is i'm i'm smuggling and he admits that he knows drugs and people are one and two items that get smuggled he just doesn't want to ride t i think he was deliberating i want to know that i don't want to smuggle drugs and i want to know what's in there because most likely based on the circumstances there's a high probability there is drugs or mention that is in that car it's different when you're involved when you're dealing with the specific intent crime of having to intend to bring and anything into the country to say ok i know i'm smelling something but somehow now you can be convicted of the specific intent crime of smuggling a person in the united states and that's why there much more tailored to knowledge rather than yeah but it has the combined element and that's why my main argument is either the jewel instructions should not have been given or he should have been given a lesser included