accord appreciate your willingness to accept the appointment in this case under the criminal justice act and you may proceed with your art thank you your honor may it please the court mr kronk i am honored to be here this afternoon on behalf of my client mr jonas ross on behalf of mr ross we're asking the court to reverse this conviction as to the charge of distribution of a controlled substance resulting in de sold by my client mr ross there was in fact no evidence offered at trial that the deceived in this case had ever used the rock of a heroin mixture that my client had provided nd that there was insufficient evidence to prove that our client mr ross sold the pure phenol which apparently did kill the deceit and this case proceeded to a bench trial on one of the four counts in the barrage provides a road map for this court where drugs sold by the defendant was not a bought for ha's of the drug users injury or death by overdose the defendant may not be liable for the injury or death deceiving died from a multi drug overdose the united states supreme court found that the drugs sold by a barrage to the deceit and were not alone sufficient to have caused the deceiv instead and reversed his conviction mr ross this case the case that bar here provides an even more favorable factual situation for the defendant than barraging and it's progeny because there is no physical or forensic evidence just to provide some additional facts for the court's benefit we've included snips or you know a little smaller photos within our brief of some of the government's exhibits notably photos from the crime scene  photos show that there was a rock of peril when sentinel and for ronald fenton all contained in two separate fragments of a plastic bag that had been ripped apart and then not in it and that that was completely intact when the deceiving spidy was found next to that on at the desk in this hotel room where the deceased was found was a smattering of a trace amount of what mr ross sold drugs to a confidential informant in a controlled by with law enforcement in two other controlled by a prior to mr payors death and one after mr payors death there was a course of investigation after the deceased was found in our case prior to our client's arrest one hundred percent of the time when law enforcement was able to examine drugs sold by our client who was an admitted hero and dealer he was selling in single container or bag quantities and one hundred percent of the time these drugs were a mixture of hero when and other analogs our client as far as law enforcement knew had never sold purif and all in the past and had never sold two separate packages of drugs at one time further there was an assertion made by one of the government's witnesses i'm one of the law enforcement officers at mr ross's trial that it was unlikely that the deceased here would have caller client to order to request drugs be delivered to him at his hotel room if he still had drugs remaining  there was evidence at the trial that the deceased in this case based on his autopsy and toxicology was a long time drug user and i would just like to point out to the court that it's interesting that the facts in barrage and in fact every case that i have read proceeding from garage were cases where the deceased had used multiple drugs and garages self where the deceased had used drugs in the morning then stole some drugs from a friend then purchased other drugs later in the day so in fact all of the case law the facts of the case law here flies in the face of that assertion by law enforcement  this trial that the deceased here would not have purchased for our client mr ross if he still had a small amount of fentanyl remaining possible cause of death here which was that in all intoxication the governor isn't the governor is it knitting the courts error here that the three drug mixture provided by our client could not have been about for cause of pathologist or a university of iowa hospitals and clinics testified how he personally had performed the autopsy and toxicology testing on the body of kenneth payor he specifically requested after hearing of the  the testing results of what the substances were found in the hotel room that the body be tested for for ronald knol and there was no ferrata plan not found in the body of kenny pear well i'm not sure of the government  showing up in the autopsy for reasons that can be explained so could you address that if you go ahead i can illustrate what happened here that the trace amount of drugs found on the desk in mr payors hotel room was pure fact no and it strains logic that somehow he could have broken off if there was some other rock of a mixed drug mixture give us i'm glad kronk from the u s attorney's office in davenport and i represent the united states i was one of the trial lawyers in this case i think the biggest problem there's two problems here for mr ross and the st of course is the standard of review mr ross wants to point out a number of conflicts between his latest version of what happened with what the other evidence in the cases and he actually suggests that mr ross had no idea that mr pater had ingested not and died until a detective interviewed him about that oprah a month later the fact is the strong circumstantial evidence and the other corroborating evidence shows that mr payer had contacted mr ross before he came to davenport contacted him as soon as he checked into the hotel asked him for drugs presumably heroin and not that and all because i don't think anybody on the street actually deliberately ingest street fat and all they always asked for heroin and what we're seeing more often is that heroin is mixed with fentanyl which is the situation in this case the thing that they're raising now that i'm sensually wasn't raised below is that in this ind tment the government referred to the mixture of drugs that mr ross provided to mr payer and in fact mr ross doesn't deny that he intoxication was proved beyond a reasonable doubt when you consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the government when you resolve all conflicts in the testimony in favor of the government and when you take all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the verdict all the reasonable inferences here are that the only drugs that mr payer ingested nolen heroin provided by mr ross on that date when he arrived in davenport contacted him by text and by the way contacted no one else there is no evidence that he saw anybody after he saw mr ross there's strong evidence that mr ross went to meet with them deliver the packages of drugs to packages mr payer opened one as soon as mr ross left or some time after mr ross left he knew that mr payer may have overdosed he dropped his phone number that day  day that he found out he had overdosed was which was essentially right after mr payer died and all of this shows that not only that mr ross to live the drugs that resulted in mr  but that mr ross knew it this suggestion that there's no evidence that he delivered two packages is simply not accurate he actually said how much do you want one or two established that it was two grams that he had ordered there was an open package of drugs on the counter and the residual amounts there were pure fountain all but it is likely based on other drugs provided by mr ross that he was providing a mixture of drugs that had fentanyl and heroin in them why w was that mixtures are not homogenously they're not you know an equilibrium is not established in a package of mixed drugs and so what was  the counter was such a small amount was less than a th of a gram if i'm not mistaken and that was pure fountain also the other drugs that it was mixed with that were clearly in mr payer system was a mixture from that open package and what was left on the counter was fattening up and i think of saying you mean the government's theory was that some of the mixture could have been broken out and showed up as ross is not he's not the one putting these drugs together he's purchasing them in the form that he gets them and he made the breaking them down and packaging them which is a form of manufacture but that they're coming from the source in and non homogenous blanton and that either the substance mr payer ingested contained the funeral fat in all and it was metabolized or it didn't after an effect no in it at all either way there's no evidence that someone else provided the drugs that mr payer ingested and there's strong evidence that mr ross provided the exact drugs that mr payer and ingested and that includes the fat in all that was the but for cause of  if there's no questions all the rest of my time to the court the cure fenton all that the deceit and apparently ingested prior to his death he doesn't list what that evidence might be except that our client was a known drug dealer and that the deceit here had ordered drugs from our client he doesn't confront the fact that our client had participated in three other controlled by his where he only sold single packages of drugs and where he always sold in mixed quantities furthermore that mr rockwood mr crack said that behavior to provide a little additional factual information for the court mr pay or order to from mr ross in a text message to grams the court does not need to find that any of mr ross's testimony is credible in order to find that to reverse mr ross's conviction of mr ross's guilty behavior could have been guilty behavior from using or selling drugs to mr payer and to snap is not relevant to a buff or causal analysis under barraged thank you i see that i have used all my time throughout thank you to both council for your arguments the case is submitted the court was own opinion do