What about the issue of not giving Davila complete testimonial immunity? Mary Stillinger argued to the judge that the immunity he did have would not protect him if he admitted he was carrying a gun--as well as for other drug related activities. She argued that the not immunizing him for other drug activities permitted the prosecution to unfairly characterize him as a naif about the drug trade.
That was Stillinger's argument,I am not convinced that the argument is correct. Even if correct, I think it is harmless error rather than reversible error. The fact that ODA received immunity for his testimony was presented to the jury, I think will be enough for the 5th circuit to find harmless rather reversible error. Just MHO, but I would still include the argument in the brief, plus it does kind of dovetail with the exclusion of evidence argument for the 2nd drug smuggling incident. It may be a winner, as I have stated earlier , you never what an appellate court will hang their hat on.