appellant who's asking this court to set aside his two drug convictions after a jury trial in inner judgments of acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence or in the alternative for relief to order new a new trial as a result of four evidentiary rulings that the trial court may i'd like to begin with the first casey people's conviction depended on the testimony of quantity harris a codefendant in this case he was a member of the rangers conspiracy to distribute drugs in st louis he wasn't a family member but most of the people in the conspiracy were members of the ranch randerson family in one way or another  the central events in the case have to do with casey people's arrest on the night of april second two thousand and thirteen here in the city of st louis on her to april second that night quantity harris had never seen casey peoples the district court allowed to testify about the events on the night of april second evidence to convict  what about what about the well maybe maybe you're going to answer the conspiracy is different but they was there was testimony that he was seen mr people's was seen going into this residence at a particular time came back out there was a traffic stop there were drugs that were ultimately linked to him so is that enough to link him to the conspiracy if if there's sufficient evidence to show the jury that he actually purchase drugs from that location he had gone there to obtain drugs which he which he did not he testified in this case and so that wasn't why i was there that wouldn't that wouldn't put you in a conspiracy that could simply be a buyer didn't properly apply the the test for eight zero one two story saying that that's that that the statements themselves are the only evidence of the conspiracy the disputed statements from mr brander the only evidence of a conspiracy with involving people's well the fact the fact that he's their mere presence doesn't convict him  conspiracy the fact that that he's at that house and the the courts require evidence and just what you're asking about independent evidence evidence with independent investing in investigating this case at least as early as the fall of two thousand and eleven from the fall of two thousand and eleven until april second two thousand and thirteen despite use of informants pin registers trap and tree trace devices surveillance the officers had no idea that casey peoples had anything to do with the ranters so if this was a case where casey peoples had been seen at that address before or his phone number had had shown up  a pin register or the trap and trace device that would that would be a different story but the evidence of this conspiracy in this case comes from what harris claims to have learned from joseph render if if there were if there were indeed if the record established independent evidence to support the conspiracy people's involvement in the conspiracy would you concede that those that those statements made by rander were statements in furtherance of that consumer conspiracy and assuming a assuming that the conspiracy has been a properly advance the conspiracy in any way so as are evidence put on as to the meaning of twins people coming through what that phrase means or what the language used by or  i misunderstand your question over just personally i think that that where i'm having a little bit of trouble with that particular testimony is that i understand that  mr harris said that he said twenty people be fit and to come through we'd be we fit in to be on we shouldn't be back together and that talks about a relationship of some kind which putting context as it all kind of fit together may infer some relationship tying in people's to some other ongoing relationship is that is that not what he was saying was he saying something different was there something else going on there  twenty or that he was one of the that the casey people's was one of twins people they've been investigating this group for a long time and there was no evidence of that drugs that are discovered in the ultimate search and are asked well on the on the second count mr people's was convicted of possession with intent to distribute and the and the amount of heroin was more than a personal use was more than a personal use amount but what i wanted to tell the court about that is i'm not an economist but even though drugs are expensive it doesn't mean they're  scarce so nine ounces of heroin the street price of that quite a testimony at trial would be maybe around twenty thousand dollars but that doesn't mean that heroin was so scar that it was unlikely that that this heroin could have come from somewhere else if it didn't come from the apartment that the randerson had been using to distribute drugs i want to talk about the issue allowing a veteran police officer to testify as an expert on drug trafficking i realize that the admission of evidence that is more the standard to review is abuse of discretion but appellant argument is that the judge abused his discretion in this particular case by not doing the kind of reliability determination that rule seven o two requires in other words in some cases it might be perfectly appropriate for an expert to testify about the nature of drug trafficking or but that doesn't mean that the expert to testify about all matters in connection with drug trafficking without being qualified as to a particular matter so testifying about how someone can make methamphetamine with items that can be purchased at the drug store or hardware store doesn't doesn't qualify that person to testify about other matters in connection with the drug business unless the court makes a reliability determination otherwise the  officers may just be testifying based on stereotypes attributable to people similarly the in not allowing him to testify and not allowing me to cross examine about the world series tickets scandal well maybe in other cases it was it was proper to prohibit cross examination of officers regarding that but not in this case the officer's credibility was key and in my in my reply brief i tried to explain why the admission of that while that would have been a cross examination in this case where in the back case it might not have been cross examination i would want to save a little time for a bottle thank you to the first issue of the admissibility of the coconspirator statements i just ask the court to keep in mind the bell finding procedure that was undertaken in this case mr deaton engaged in aggressive and diligent motion practice in this case in relation to a motion to suppress identification so everybody knew what the statements were going to be more were from a very experienced district court judge and as we do in any case when we presented the proof in the case we had time to do so in a coconspirator morning that james who testified among other things that joseph rander was a principal in the conspiracy and that the property at issue here fifty nine eleven highland was a drug distribution point for the cocaine was seized and in september of two thousand and eleven then in august of two thousand and twelve she was caught in two separate incidents with both both united states currency sixty thousand dollars in california and then transporting two kilos of  cocaine from california to st louis and she was caught now kirky so the court heard that they'd also heard that leah douglas testified she was casey people's twenty year old girlfriend he was sporty at the time he was more sophisticated and he used to when i say used i mean used her to hold his narcotics they had an established drug trafficking relationship she testified that mr people's who was on parole was a drug dealer and she held his narcotics for him she was entirely aware that he was a drug dealer so keep that in mind in relation to the buyer seller argument that was raised here but that that evidence doesn't include people's into the rander that's the that's the that's correct your honor those so is it i mean it seems like the nub of the the concern here for the defendant is that right so well i'm not going to speak for them but it seems to me that if you say ok there's a conspiracy that they've they've proven up sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to for the purposes of coconspirator statements but the only way you get mr peoples in is through a coconspirator statement of a conspiracy he may not be involved statements which are the statements of joseph rander that he made to quantitate harris both before and after the the narcotics deal here let's look at the facts in terms of what circumstantial and illicit association may be completely circumstantial citing more martin so what's up the words out for a minute and look at the conduct where casey people's showing up late in the late evening hours he's driving his vehicle  family and friends and and vernon wescott doesn't even have a car so a case of peoples shows up at a drug house from from there that that is something that supports the existence of a of an agreement he enters the drug house he takes a that people's walked into the residence he was the only person to go in and then in accord with their standard sheet she was she said when we upload over i knew what was going to happen if there was drugs it was coming to me because my job was to hold it but that's the essence of her testimony so the inference that the jury found your honor was was that he obtained the narcotics when he went into the residence and that was not in the vehicle before people's entered the residence and then when they were pulled over douglas did not say that you saw people's hand the narcotics to wescott which he did see wescott hand it to her as she she put it on her on her person and then the female to people's before he ever made a ruling on the on the bell findings did harris know how much it was paris didn't know how much it was what harris knew before the fact your honor what he he told the police when he notified them what brought them to watch these events and set up a surve is no longer a conspirator that's correct your honor but and and if i may if i may answer that question i would like to move on to why the statements aren't further rants of the of the conspiracy in the end depend on evidence of the existence of the of the conspiracy and and so i guess and one conspiracy case suggested can be entirely circumstantial evidence of that the independent evidence of the existence of the conspiracy the officers watching people enter the residence i was at the residence within moments i conducted a car stop and discovered a quarter kilogram of heroin and then we had douglas testified or standard procedure that she peoples's a dope deal she holds as dope form because he says you're less likely to get searched you're a woman and then the police recover a quarter  thousand dollars there is some kind of agreement there are basic drug dealing tenets support that this is not a charity if you take it you that pay upfront or you don't pay later that's that's a reasonable inference for the jury to to draw in terms of whether the statements and there was there was no exchange of money at that time there's no evidence of that your honor mr harris testified they didn't witness an exchange of money and then when he came back up the morning peoples out the door fifty nine eleven heil and tells harris that somebody is coming over he needs to work the door go down he's coming and it's twenty people were fixin to be back on something to that effect he's he's been so taking a drug deal he's and he's also providing for the security of the conspiracy by having a doorman there to provide security and he's telling the doorman it's ok to let this guy in and let's talk about those statements for a moment after the after the deal nine ounces i funded nine ounces well for one one thing that does it tells quantity harris that there's still a quantity of heroin in the residence it we still have heroin there was a kilogram he took nine ounces so he knows are still something in the residence they need to protect and allows joseph to continue to protect the heroin that remains in the residence he also confirm that the defendant peoples for future dealings he's in the conspiracy i front  this deal went down he's a part of the conspiracy now the other thing it does you can make a finding that that it supports a and a counting function for the the conspiracy the the  statements doesn't end right there this is an ongoing drug conspiracy as five or six subsequent seizures that we introduced evidence of in the trial all based on information from quantity harris by the way those reflect the ongoing nature of the of who has what so so it furthers the conspiracy in multiple respects and in addition i think i think judge erickson did touch on something that the relationship with twenty people refers to some type of a relationship relationship you don't walk in and get nine houses of heroin without having some kind of relationship harris testified they didn't just let people in off the street there's no evidence to support this and they could just walk in and get nine ounces  if i may out address the other issues raised by mr deaton in terms of the expert the testimony that was offered by the the district court didn't abuse it its discretion with regard to the last point it's broad discretion in admitting the coconspirator statements in addition the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion by allowing detective clay twenty eight  would engage in hundreds of narcotics trafficking investigations including undercover work and long term investigations to testify to methods used by drug dealers that's that's not controversial in terms of the law they  testimony in terms of what's permissible under under cases like like i believe rober rock robertson kelly and roberts and that we decided in our our brief there was nothing there was nothing about this that was out of the realm of the ordinary and terms of explaining to a jury giving them information to assist them and about you aiding the way drug dealers operate these are things that that regular jurors don't know it's outside the scope of their knowledge and a qualified expert meticulous district judge judge webber there are names on dockets two seventy six judge nelson's are in r and judge weber's memorandum adopting judge noses are in are very specific they engage in analysis of itself is supported by back in this was a back in alice's the the judges did not abuse her discretion when they followed an eighth circuit opinion that as judge weber put it and his his memorandum in order docket number two eighty this isn't a case in which the defense is nit picking the government's evidence the defense presented its own evidence including a canine officer who came in and testified about how a dog  the dog would have been alerting to the steering wheel in the front seat the abuse of discretion here again and it's because even though certain kinds of evidence had been  case and as for the substance the subsequent drug seizures again no evidence connecting casey people's after april the second my time is up thank you very much for your attention thank you mr d