i'm number of issues here and you're welcome to address any and all of them i can tell you from my perspective one that i'm interested in is the poverty in the prejudice that may or may trial and then argued substantively during the government's closing i think it's important when discussing this issue perhaps some of the priests were not most clear on the corolla gee of how this all occurred i think it's important to know and they weren't going to enter dues the evidence and for that reason the district court decided that that motion in limine a was moot in the first instance when evidence of mr alvarado is poverty or potential financial need came into evidence was on the direct examination of agents stored staring the government's case in chief and when relating what agency story it's alleged was mr overwrought as a statement to him at the a i did not try this case i was not a trial case and counsel i can't say what was going to trial counsel's mind but i would imagine that came out kind of quickly and might have been quite a bit of a surprise given the eliminated rulings the second time that the evidence came in was during the cross examination of agent stuart's during the government's case in chief and i'm sorry if some of my language is awkward the eighteen stores did testify in rebuttal and i'm just trying to make sure like when the evidence came in during cross examination defense counsel did confession and that the facts that made up the alleged confession were actually known to agents towards before interrogating mr all varada the next point at which evidence came in was when the defense called rebecca  lopez and because of some when there's problems if ms lopez was taken out of order the government had not finished its case in chief however the district judge did allow the defense to call this low as to accommodate her schedule so the defense put on ms lopez who the sister of mr all varadero and on directed examination defense counsel asked mrs lopez about her mother being in the hospital mung other things but notably didn't ask anything about the hospital bills who was paying for the hospital bills not time it comes up on the redirect of ms lopez where defense counsel briefly talks about whether the brothers and sisters  helping to pay for those bills and then the evidence really comes pouring in on the recross of ms love has by the government attorney the prosecutor begins asking his love has whether mr alvarado was working at the time of the  t and that's that excerpt record at four fifteen defense counsel object to that and judge the need as the district judge actually agreeing said look this this looks like it's going beyond the scope and again that's  n excellent record for fifteen and the prosecutor asked lee for just asked a couple more questions and he's given that leave and the other questions are whether the defendant was using his wages from the warehouse to help pay the hospital bills  by the government that this was a family that was having difficulty meeting those medical expenses because it looks as though by that time when the evidence is coming in that the government may actually argue that substantively that this was a need that mr oliver otto had at the time and i think with your honor that it does start creeping in and then it's on the cross examination of mr all geraldo that a torrent just comes and it does tie into this this initial question of the prosecutor asked his sister about his work at the warehouse  out and even yesterday and i do want to go back to the very beginning when this subject ever was ever raised that was in the government's case in chief during the direct examination of one of their witnesses eighteen stores that's what started th defense counsel did not go into it in depth because i assume at that point as counsel didn't think this was going to be an issue in terms of like the substantive argument that he needed money he was poor that's why he committed this crime but that's exactly what it proven all the elements was mr alvarado his apparent poverty and and the ambiguity i mean the sort of nonchalance that the government had like oh it could have been the medical bills it could have been that he had been fired or he was unemployed he was employed unemployed he just needed money he throws out a laundry list of things all of which relates to an apparent lack of money and that being a motive for the crime and i think that's what makes it particularly objectionable because under th that's precisely that cannot happen another time we were to agree with you that it didn't rise to the level of destitute desperation some of these other cases testified or not was what the case was all about there's only one issue is about knowledge and the defense case was substantiated in certain respects the defense called mr mendez creo who was a band member of spoonfed was not true and was trying to demonstrate why it wouldn't be true the band member went a long way to that another argument that the defense raise which with three that i think resounds was that allegedly he's going to los angeles and this marijuana is built in compartment that i guess took up some portion of the gas tank the degree to which it took out that portion is unclear from the testimony also mr overall the story itself is a plausible story he had a reason to be down in mexico was corroborated by his band member and also his own testimony he went to a relative's house loaned his car to a nephew of the nephew would have had sufficient time to to load the marijuana into the van and most importantly the this is a quote perhaps he was unemployed and needed money that's exactly it something that might actually resonate with the jury i don't know but it's precisely the type of argument that shouldn't be made by a government counsel in a district court of the ninth circuit if there are no other questions on the poverty it's true if i could move on i would like to talk about briefly some of the extraneous information that came into mr overwrought as trial which just simply had no place in it and i'd like to begin sort of chronologically if i could this idea that mr auto may or may not have heard news accounts of other people being arrested at the border the first time that this was brought up was on the cross examination of mr oliver auto and the government in its grief argues that the reason the prosecutor went through this line of questioning was to demonstrate that mr auto knew that it was against the law to smuggle drugs and to rebut this idea of him is and i think they use the term unknowing do first of all i'm not sure his knowledge about whether it's illegal to smuggle drugs in the united states is relevant to anything that's not an element of either the crimes for which was convicted but also he stated that he knew it was against the law and it was after he stated that he knew it was against the law and this is on cross examination that the prosecutor goes into well you've heard stories about  people caught you've heard stories about seemingly people you would never think of that would have smuggle drugs being caught and found guilty and although the last question about being found guilty you heard stories about being people being found guilty was thankfully stopped by the objection on a number of grounds expert testimony irrelevant and what not and his answer is yes of course it's common it happens all the time now the government and it's brief i don't i don't see the relevance of that whether other people smuggle drugs and whether other people how their interrogations go is wholly irrelevant to mr all brought his knowledge of the marijuana the government's response and its brief is that it was an explanation on the part of the government as to why even stores continue the record because the second substantive point and the prosecutor's closing was where in this is that excerpt of record five sixty seven is where he says well you've heard it in stories testify that more times than not people deny guilt and then confessed i mean that's a pretty powerful statement but it has nothing to do with mr alvarado it has to do with other people and it certainly doesn't have to do with any reason why  or may not have continued with the interrogation it was an expert testimony because he was basing his opinion on his experience it wasn't it wasn't a question of a late painting through what what he or she may have seen it was unnoticed although it in the rebuttal case and it just had no place in this trial and the fact that it was used prominently in closing argument i think underscores the fact that it was important to the government and with that if there are no further questions i'll try to save the last two and a half defense was false confessions the level of detail in the defendants in mission is important to them but that allegation of false confession and that's why it's important to draw out the level of detail in a different story and know you know that you know i did it is not enough time enough you have to dress it up a little bit you have to have detail and so it's so when and on redirect of the sister the defense t what in this subsidy is for that when you have this confession and you know creating all these possible errors and then we're wrestling with is it harmless ok what was the other evidence in that trial as to knowledge in the case as to harmlessness we have details in missions you know it's not just i didn't you know it's not this is not a story that was not a faction on the spot a detail the level of detail shows that and we have not only that but when it's supplemental excerpts of record we've included the signs and missions but if and it's written down the defendant actually ratified those missions we have the nervous demeanor of the defendant he comes across the border we have  kind of inconsistent vacillating statements about ownership of the cars he crosses the border we have the fact he's constantly shifting stories we have the fact that even on cross examination when pressed as to the timing of the employment employment was the lack of employment was relative was relevant because it also goes to show the defendant is going back and forth as to whether or not he's employed his sister said he was employed he said he was employed on cross examination  timing you know how could you be an exit poll when you're working in los angeles he backs out on not employed and in fact the prosecutor in closing argued that argued that the fact of unemployment not to show motive only but also to show look at stories not very plausible  out the fact that he's all of a sudden unemployed a month before the offense that you have to pay the mother's hospital bills even the child support which a prosecutor didn't mean to elicit which is the the judge so found even all not just shows you know there's a con circumstances that's putting him in just for straights and that kind of think that's with his story about how you know he didn't want to do it and then he had changed his mind in the end turning from poverty to the cross examination of mr alvarado district court and there's a lot of deference given to the trial court i'm signing what is relevant here you know i have to say cross examination is is hard it's a very delicate and difficult art and as the supreme court  cousin you know you're you remember you're a longtime member of society and privy to all the things that we know as members of society you're not just some naive person you've been around and so that's really what he wanted to get at and that's why i'm a lot of these first of all small part of the could the the alleged confession and if it's part of the confession and if the government's theory really is the sort of proof that this alleged confession did indeed happen there was sufficient more than sufficient evidence for the government to make that argument there no one disputed that his mother was the defense witness and there's lopez corroborated that the mother was sick and was in the hospital and the family was helping to pay those medical bills whether you have to ha home that point that he was poor he needed money for the bills and then put on top of that that he may have been fired from his job was unemployed and as the prosecutor said in closing maybe he was unemployed in the needed money that that that second layer is just not necessary not necessary and gratuitous and i write the child support that came at the end of a long line of questioning by the government about whether he confided financial support for his wife and children while mr all the rado's statement that he had a child support order wasn't directly he wasn't asked do you have a child support order that was certainly responsive to the prosecutor question i believe was the third question in the line of questions on whether you provide financial support for your wife and children that's response of divac question the whole line of questioning was objected to and was improper from the beginning so i don't know the fact that he did