the district court judge who was appointed to the case issued an order stating that mr bond would be released on periphery pretrial services because his appeal is not for the purposes of the way and raises the substantial question of law or fact likely to result in a new trial the judge put off the sentencing due to that and there's four issues in this case that truly demonstrate that mr bond did not receive his day in court as he showed up pursuant to the constitution of the united states i mean to skip around to the most powerful issue the issue that mr bond was not able to testify on his own behalf without the trial judge continually interrupting and basically degrading him in front of the jury it was very very prejudicial for instance the trial judge how working in insurance works one of the major issues of this case was the difference between net income and gross proceeds from self employment it's not a difficult concept limited to remind the piano that mr bond without a doubt was disabled and his disability was a severe head injury and the court instead of recognizing that again limits him to the three answers when she didn't there on the stand and every time he's trying to answer something the trial judge just is making a commentary on what he's saying and so he's number one he's never able to get a flow going so you can never tell what what his defense is what the answers to the questions are the judge keeps cutting him off you can tell the attorney doesn't know what to do with that and the jury sees this so mr bond is casting a light where he looks like he dishonest because the judge is implying that he is by every time he answers the question no that's a relevant keep keep going answer the next one and that's what she did not do that to the government in fact there's a question o a question and answer dialogue and page seventy nine defendants access for excerpts and the question that's asked to the to the government's witness understand it can you tell us what that document and then it goes over to page eight the government witness says yes and according to the trial judge that should be the end of the question but if you look at the transcript there's almost a page describing what the exhibit the exhibit she makes commentary on the exhibit the address on the invoices are two different addresses this isn't a standard invoice there's all sorts of dialogue and then the witness ask the questions to the government and says do you want to know the price regarding the that she's written so the judge allows the government witness and the government attorneys to have dialogue to explain the questions and doesn't allow the same to mr bunce when the jury seeing that they're going to have questions about why isn't he allowed to testify there must be something wrong with his testimony and that for the prejudice live this bond was permitted to testify for about three and a half hours without judicial interruptions the clearer that's correct if you look at the government's case there's about four days of te and isn't it also correct that she brought counsel in the chambers or at least outside the presence of the jury on two separate occasions and warned response to counsel about asking questions and only after those two warnings right yes what do we make of it it does not change mr bond the prejudice that he received and again he was he testified for three three and a half hours but the government had about four days of witnesses where they were able to present evidence from you can see in the transcript there is testimony where he's trying to describe to the jury how you get from the gross proceeds to the net and he tries to give the history of what's going on in the insurance industry you become an insurance agent you take training you get leads and you get this growth thing come but to get to that gross income you start telling about all the where he is talking about the the type of work that he needs to do to create the gross income he also was talking about how residual income works where you're not doing the work anymore but you get a check and it's all cut out throughout the throughout his testimony and why this is extremely important is because the other issues in this case he was denied an expert on the issue of gross vs net proceeds so the government was able to have their witnesses come forward and say well he made this much money this year this much money this year and it was all gross never had an expert be able to come in and say what the net was so he was the only one who could do it and with his cut off continuously it prejudices him and then when you look at what was happening with his counsel during the case and i'm aware that generally ineffective assistance of counsel is not raised on a direct appeal and but in this case it must be because throughout the case was who were the two witnesses you may be about to get to who were the two witnesses were excluded they were too character witnesses so the other than himself he was offering were they all character witnesses no they were not  i'm running short on time but i want to take a few seconds to talk about the ineffective assistance of counsel there was no witness list ready on the day the trial throughout the case the court's continued reprimanding defendant's counsel both in front of the jury and not and privately sometimes mr bond was there when this was happening sometimes he was that he had no counsel morning honors john boyle on behalf of the united states regarding if you number one the issue in this case was never the issue was whether the defendant can feel the events in his life that would affect his benefits hundred nine he lets it by month six hundred dollars a month the jury knew what his net income was because the defendant had written it out for the social security administration so c p a would not have been able to assist him because he was able to tell them exactly how much his net income was remind you that the threshold for social security was two hundred dollars a month in which the trial work period would end and then he would go to substantial could not presume the evidence that contradicted what had been put on the form can get on the stand so you have you know i'm not a c p a i'm not an expert this was my best guess what turns out on long he could have introduced that information yes however the issue in the case wasn't whether he was a good accountant it was whether he was acting in good faith with the social security administration and whether or not his actual six hundred dollar figure was correct or not wasn't his duty his duty was to report to them things that were changing in his life his ability to work the hours a week he worked and the amount of income he was making so it would not affect anything in this case it certainly wasn't necessary for his what was the government's burden in this case events so there was never an element that required net income versus gross income that was never an element of defense secondly they never showed any prejudice and never showed an example of how the c p a had once been used would have actually help and anyway we don't know if it would have helped or hurt but they certainly never came up with any examples at any time of this record or hear as to what information the c p a would have provided that would have helped them and the government's witnesses many of them have accounting training yes how many of them certainly the c p a who testified mr rodriguez with the c p a the first individuals that testified was a social security administration employee and working with those numbers i don't she was not a c p a that she had accounting experience isn't the standard in the case whether reasonably competent counsel would have required the assistance so the request sense first of all he testified the information was at his house and he was able to give information to the jury the defense attorney cross examined all the witnesses on this very issue it was not necessary because again the issue wasn't isn't necessary as you put it on your case no i believe the evidence was necessary i'm just saying that when the defense claims they didn't know his net income and they assert that in the brief that's not actually true this was a defendant who had some difficulty explaining himself to the jury did me i don't think you can draw that from this record he had four and a half hours on direct not three and a half hours if you look at the transcript for the half hours on direct and whether he was eloquent and or whether he was confusing i don't know we can draw that conclusion certainly at times with not responsive and was rambling in the court was interrupting him but i don't think you can draw from this rhetoric whether or not he was having difficulty in that you suggest the again he has to describe what's happening in his own line to what was happening during these years where he was working his ability to work he testified and told the jurors all those things whether or not he was actually a good accountant would not difference in the outcome or could that have made a difference to the jury and the reason is when he declared that his net income was six hundred dollars a month when he filled out those forms he was telling them what his mental state was he knew he was making six hundred dollars a month and the letter five and eighty six just to show how much income he was making it was designed which i did not state of mind income flow and correct gross income flow which affected his ability to work throughout this whole trial the only issue aside from his income was was this person working during this period it was not disputed that he never self reported to the social security there's no room in the government's calculus on this kind of charge for honest mistake but there is certainly room for honest mistake in that event it was able to testify and tell the jurors that he believed he was being honest with them they chose not to believe in regard to the first  never exceeded two hundred dollars per month that wouldn't have affected the verdict in this case yes that is the government's contention and you think that because because he reported income as net income six hundred dollars a month in that what was relevant is he never community the social security administration till i asked him in two thousand and one even if he thought the entire time because he's not an expert perhaps he's confused all of us seek some kind of professional help returns on april fifteenth and sometimes things that we think are deductions are not sometimes things that we think are not the mistaken but the point was he never reported those numbers and to social security during those few even if he didn't know well let's assume let's assume that's hypothetically that the trial judge appointed a c expert pointed out to him these things and told the moment the c p a pointed it out he didn't realize what is net income or would you would you still feel the same way i would because it wouldn't affect the single fact in this case which is he never reported any change of circumstances so his burden is to report a change in circumstance even if he does not that it has occurred if he needed an expert to arrive that conclusion yes he would need an expert but in this case he did not need an expert to arrive that conclusion because these events were happening to him he had his own business he was working as an insurance salesman in his tax forming indicated he was driving between eighteen and twenty four thousand miles a year he never reported any of that to the social security administration so he didn't need an expert to convey all of these changes in his life that affected his ability to work so on that grounds he would not ne number two there are few points the first is the defendant's wreck testimony four and a half hours he certainly had enough time to present his side of the story and to tell the jurors what it was that he was thinking he began assessed the mony in the morning on the ninth at ten forty eight am these questions by the judge in the afternoon three forty five no one has contested that the judge was actually wrong if you look at the transcript the judge says you've answered the question next question she doesn't tell the witness what she thinks she merely says you've answered the question next question and that's after giving the defendant warnings that he needed to listen to the question and answer appropriately the government does not agree that at any time he was told you give his explanation of the story we do not agree that he was only told throughout the trial he could say yes or no and also refer to the point of the brief where in the next morning where the defendant is testifying the court says you have half an hour to to finish your testimony that morning and she says you'll be done by nine thirty the defendant's direct testimony ends at eleven eighteen she gave him about three times that amount and again the trial attorney never objected when the court said you answer yes or no move on the defense attorney never went to the court and said you prevented me from saying that the court said you had to put his objection in writing i don't see any objection at any point through this trial or the he said i need more time i'm just referring to the twelve pages the defense has pulled out if you look at the questions they were yes or no questions in the court stopped the defendant from getting irrelevant rambling answers but that only happens for twelve pages a two hundred campbell's decision to release the defendant on bail pending appeal in his statements in support of that his the judge's statements in support of the judge campbell merely found that under united states versus handy that there was a this case whatsoever how long have you been in the system three years and do you do exclusively criminal work on how many occasions have you seen this happen with the convicted defendant a defendant released pending appeal  mr rose in question i have been working on appeals through the c g a appointment for over six years now this is the first case where we have had a client who has been released pending appeal i think that says a lot for this case in this case there is no doubt about mr bond's disability that is never contested he was a victim in a very serious car accident with a very serious head injury and what  the government presenting the gross income what all this does is require mr bond to prove that he is not guilty of this the burden was on the government and instead the way the case came down this was a case where the defendant had to prove that he was in the throughout the government's case they stated well he could testify and he could clarify that he wasn't required to testify but in this case he was he had to testify there was no one else who could talk about how the insurance worked how his net income versus growth and homework he had to try to do it himself and non expert a lay person next works in the social security system without a doubt this is a very complicated case an expert would have helped without an expert he was prejudiced he had an attorney who if here is did not know anything about  the social security regulations didn't know how net expenses were versus gross expense of expenses work didn't know anything about how to how an insurance agent works and tie that together with the judge's ruling saying answer yes no or i can answer yes or no so definite prejudice and his conviction should be reversed if there's no further question thank you thank the council for their arguments the case just argued will be submitted for decision then we'll proceed to the next case on the calendar which is