 The Court concluded that the conflict of interest materialized in a few ways . First , Stewart declined to cross @-@ examine one of the witnesses , who could implicate Kretske but not Glasser , for fear that it would strengthen the case against Kretske . Stewart also failed to object to the testimony of other witnesses regarding prior statements of Kretske ; under the rules of hearsay , these statements were obviously admissible against Kretske , but less obviously admissible against Glasser without a predicate showing that Glasser was a co @-@ conspirator . Stewart feared that an objection only on behalf of Glasser would highlight the admissibility of the statements against Kretske . 
