followup question this if i'm sitting there is a trial judge and he says we played with the idea of doing it to me that means unless he was using him period we believe he was to his client about and then he said i found it i found it best that we don't do that so that's possibly contradictory but at the same time  however there is a there's there are some guidance on particular cases come in a third district that address the issues of authenticity of text messages essentially what those cases explain what was was required to provide some type of evidence at least demonstrating that mr slater was the right or through text messages and that he was the right few pictures of the text messages that he thought were indicative in terms of the ship and of course the us will testify that they found the phones but again it's my position that that wasn't enough reliable and that experts recently bly rely upon and for moon experts opinions well it just seems like these text messages were because they were just seriously lacking and any information they were truly they seriously lacking in detail there is no way that an expert could look at this and say you know what this provides so much information for me that i'm willing to reach another draw another you know skip over stuff and just find that he has and should and so that's why i think text messages were very instruction would be would not be a good idea however the record does not have the most crucial public in fact the defense claim which is the identity of the party who made the ultimate decision as to whether that offense instruction would be  we talked about it and i persuaded him and he acquia store i told him it would be stupid to you know say the drugs aren't yours but then i ask that you be found a lesser included defendant made the ultimate decision strictly presumes that counsel made affected and appropriate decisions and acted appropriately and under the williams case recognize that it could be equally assume for the record that after consultation sending them to it could have been a case where a police station or a child or somebody who got a hold of the phones and sees messages doesn't matter who they were they did not have to be any particular person so that's why the defendant loses issue of the case not clearly it's not closely balanced even on the intent to distribute issue because the recording the defendant says on there he's not fighting that he's that whether or not he's a drug dealer he made that  recording that's a pretty damning admission even if it's not phrased directly this saying he had an intent to distribute he never said so much but but it was a very damaging admission of this fact the fact that we have the text here and i think that was just important to go through the analysis for the defendant to show that some of these were phrases questions and what exactly is being asserted here and and that is show that are are these messages being admitted to the truth of the matter certain other word with these actual people who really want to drive that was our goal is moving here to show the effect on the recipient and to establish the incriminating nature of the defendants replied and this is a case like the tice case where the have to be admissible evidence in order to to be sent to the jury because they can be of a type a light upon by experts in the field in formulating their opinions and with detective dealing with asked that precise question he answered absolutely so in that situation and this court reviews the issue for use of discretion when that particular these magic words are being asked to the detective and he says absolutely this is not an abuse of discretion for the truck repercussions dealing with police officers testimonies as long as those as those assertions are supported that's ok essentially here it's proper for the police are for the prosecutor argue credibility of witnesses and say that well they are supported here on the credibility of the officers who saw the talking motion came down to the admissions and then in reporting and question inference of whether that these substances found nearby him and also major damage inference this is that he and this was a separate charge he tried to get his girlfriend's per the person who was at the scene when the police arrived to take responsibility falls asleep take responsibility for these drugs and it's a major major issue of consciousness  and but here we have a full blown exchange between counsel slater in the court and the counsel testified that he was there i did not want to give the instruction never refuse reason section but because the text messages worse were so prejudicial because of the system we were we only