didn't know about the aliens when he sloot is a violation of his right to present a defense and also to federals of evidence and also where the well that's not what the testimony would have shown anyway but the testimony that you're complaining about  honor i might if i might have gone toward helping show that but it wouldn't challenge your honor i would respectfully disagree with that i know that that was the testimony that came out during cross examination that was later struck however what was before the court was a proper about what it is that would have been said as a defense been allowed to present this in its own case and keep the depressed it called the case and try to elicit what was said in the proper statements the government said specifically and this is in the supplemental a sort of record that and this is a quote she said her husband asked her if the two people were legal and she said that they were and that's what the government put in its statement a statement of fact when it submitted a brief to the court regarding what it was that would have come out further there was a complaint is also a part of the ex or the record and that's gone through and there again it says that she stated that the defendant have served the two people were legal and the codefendant told him that they were so i think it's really clear that what would come out is that she lied about that and that is our chief complaint in this case that that wasn't allowed to be presented to the jury that and the inadmissible hearsay evidence that was used against him from the two witnesses that she went to go pick up the second material witness mr florence testified that there was a spontaneous statement that he made when the aliens stop speaking and if you'll excuse my language and the call started saying i'm sorry i'm sorry when the aliens didn't present their papers and he looked back at her and said you just fucked me is what he said and that wasn't the only place it wasn't just from his testimony we also called below the case agent and the case he turned recounted that ms flores also said in recounting what happened just after the  that she said to him i'm sorry i'm sorry and mr corresponded you just spoke to me mr flores testified himself that she lied to him mr flores reported that she came into the armpit afterwards saying i'm sorry i'm sorry it's not that fall prey until the agents when they were first taken in and the district court struck that also so the jury didn't get to consider that in addition victoria arg way o it didn't come in that she said he didn't know there's no place and all of that in the only statement that didn't come in all of the rest of it and you could argue from all of the rest of the evidence that showed that she did it and he didn't have a problem in this goes to show that it may have been her idea she may have been the one who did all the leg work she may have been the one who did all sorts of stuff then he went across the border driving like two or two and a half hours to pick up to people he didn't know and a place at a location one of which he arranged and h told her about and because she's the one who got out of the car and went over to pick up the farrago and he goes back across the border and for reasons which nobody can explain putting on his bad doubtful that the fed happened but even if it wasn't it's ultimately going to be a jury question he is entitled to his right to present a defense in every single case where this court has found this kind of thing violated  gave it to defense many months after to something that happened right away so this is something that is much more significant and has to be a jury question and the judge below error and you can tell by looking at order which the government put in there supplemental xor to record be my position and i think this is also true for the next issue that i want to talk about which is the fact that in admission of a party opponent supposedly was operating against my client with absolutely no independent corroboration outside the statement whatsoever this happened in two instances first with libya it would bear talking about what her mother said in a cold war and what the government was able to put in was that  there she can't just by being on the plane necessarily show that she's in a conspiracy of the actual the clearance for very maybe there was evidence of a conspiracy between nicole and my client perhaps but there was the i think it's very significant that this declarant stated that her mother her mother brother and father were all there with her so to the extent that it was reasonable inference that whoever came with her arrange what happened i don't think that that's reason enough to think that it was found and i think this is even more true with emilio arrogance and the court actually has a written order about this topic  aragon stated there's this man mr pena that i met at a bar and mr pena told me stephen flores is not actually saying his name but saying that man right there he's no one is going to cross you and this was supposedly contrary to my client testimony and it was very damning evidence suggesting that he knew about this way ahead of time well it's mr florissant position to the day that that was not true and that he was duped into this but he never got to cross examine mr pena and there was no independent corroboration at all as required there's a conspiracy between arrogant and my client what we need under the rules of evidence and the advisory committee notes and so remain to some connection between the declarant and my client that may show that he's in conspiracy with with this material witness but the question is is there a declarant it's also in the spirit that i want to add that i think that that i'm also saluting the statement  mean has her counsel said she will testify to this later and then the judge made the decision before he ever heard any pro her or why he wants it she would say right there i don't recall anything about him saying that she will testify  arrangement and the answer was from lieber vera that she would wait for her over there to pay her but then the court knowing it was ambiguous said when you say she who do you mean and she said i meant my mother prejudicial statement and it is in fact the hearsay of the mother not in the cold floors in regard to the law in the way that it applied mr brady talked about a lot of different ways that you can help in the conspiracy and i think that's true they can point to evidence that there is a conspiracy but he's missing two important facts that are stated right in the rule and what that says is that the corroboration has to be independent of the statement and also that the corroboration is just so show the conspiracy between  find him or question him how do you know that he's a part of the conspiracy and the only way that you know is the fact of what he said there's nothing independent of the statement sure he was that said that he saw him in a bar and maybe that circumstantial evidence my client was highly mike additional in regard to this being harmless error this is a constitutional issue and they have to show that it was from beyond a reasonable doubt and it doesn't have to be shown to noble mr flores maintains his innocence to this day he told the story him that he was being bossy and he just sort of claimed that he showed his id and his badge and his id were together that's his story and that's what the jury should have decided on and they should have known that nicole admitted that