know that always be some question as to how the jury reached the verdict but when you look at the proceedings in this case of since it was the only thing that was argued sen necessarily decide i mean there was a request for an instruction that might have gone in that direction the instruction was denied there was an argument for i've just looked took a look at the other end of the argument again and in the argument everything that moved was attacked challenge the credibility of the agents the you know whether the agents can remember anything the entire key evidence in this case is a house of cards moving on to the agent's testimony the a file stuff doesn't make any sense ancient homes that know what he was talking conceded the other elements of thirteen twenty six do it every issue was really whether he was telling the truth or whether the issue was really whether he received a hearing he being prosecuted government might think required to prove that presidents have apparently been found out too late that the that the government actually thought they needed to prove it and that's that's what they that's what they argued it said no he doesn't have to be present at the rotation hearing but it is a factor that can be considered is whether he was present and that's apparently the path that a jury was taken may please the court balance sheet for the appellee united states in this case the question is whether it's an individual successfully committed perjury and as a result of receiving acquittal in a prior case can be tried for perjury little bit suspect who knows the authenticity there's no fingerprint they didn't bring the immigration judge a whole variety of errors in the deportation process one of which may have been that he was not present that the jury may have found that th government failed to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt however i don't think that that's a clue that's necessarily the perjury indictment in this case and because because courts have determined when a subsequent perjury prosecution is being brought  mr richard actually testified denied knowledge that the people he was driving around were aliens think the government obviously contested that and described specific encounters that he had with people that they should have shown that he had knowledge they were aliens well there even the question of what the jury found was simply not that he didn't do the crime so the government failed to meet its burden in that prosecution but a subsequent perjury commission can be brought reliance on his later confession they don't have its written materials a good case and defacing subsequent perjury prosecution where the testimony related to a subsequent criminal act used to show conspiracy that in in the instant case the testimony went right to the heart of the defense that he wasn't present before an immigration judge and  therefore there was no deportation it was the it was the defense team it was argued over and over again and everything related to that defense thing and that's why looking at the government is clad only stopped from bringing perjury charge because the essence of perjury is to say that the statement is false when in fact a jury is has already made a determination however i also think that you can't really separate the determination of the jury from the testimony of mr steele because of which the defense argued that he sat in his jury box he looked you in the eye and he told you the truth everything