case turns on the significance of the not guilty verdict that the jury wrote in the verdict form as to count one there's three different ways that you might be able to interpret that not guilty verdict one is that it's an implied acquittal as to the overall conspiracy that was charged in count one and if that is in fact the way that it's interpreted it means that mr carouse was in fact acquitted the second way to read that not guilty verdict i'm just in terms of if we want to focus what are the arguments i understand and the reason that argument doesn't work is because that's not what the brute force says if and if nothing else the court should make it very clear in this case what a properly constructed special very form would say this kind of case it would have eight guilty or not guilty verdict as to the conspiracy and then it would say given that the person was part of this overall single agreement which objective that he or she agreed to well i guess since mr saul it's all kind of included in this and this was a question i had anyway since you go there is the court obviously told the jury gave some instructions first and then said then to get to the special projects and included in the record you have that defense counsel says that the special verdict is a good idea and i think that the judge goes even and i think that middle east probably the hardest part of the case for me i think i think that's something that is in the record i thought it would rest i did address them i think that if you look at it everybody just missed it and quite frankly that is objective are reasonable when you get back to jury verdicts and it does not guilty on it that means something you just can't say well it doesn't really amount to anything and i think that except there's the definition of conspiracy that the court says you know  insofar instruction as it were that the court says you know what this is what a conspiracy yes and then you need to know and then there's a lot of testimony in the record about that their sales have cocaine and at their sales of marijuana and so then that and then  cocaine that wasn't really involved in the selling of the marijuana or there was simpler than the on a reasonable doubt or whatever i just counted i think we can speculate to the end of the day about what the jury intended by this i think one certainly plausible speculation is that what they meant to was to find that he agreed to one of the objects which was the object of importing cocaine but that he did not agree to the other object but unfortunately or fortunately for mr corrals i suppose that's not what the verdict form ask for one the defense legitimately joined in that request because it does become important for purposes of sentencing but the way to do that is to make sure the jury understands that it still is one separate conspiracy or one overall conspiracy that they have to find the defendant guilty or not the yes and the reason that is so important in this case is if it was just a case like a loony where they say they can supplement marijuana if you find the conspiracy charge did not exist then you must return a not guilty verdict i held one even though you might find that some other conspiracy existed so if what they found in this case that was mr carouse entered into a conspiracy to distribute cocaine that means he's entitled to one acquittal and i count one and that's what this instructions and the only way that you can ensure the protection jury number extraction number fourteen and four on the jury that they must determine if there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit one or both of the objects of the one or both of the objects of the conspiracy more effort jury instruction number fourteen stated to the jury that charging confidently and then existed lastly the jury was informed that if you find that the charged conspiracy did not exist did did not exist then they must return a not guilty verdict on count one even if they been given those instructions would have been perfectly proper what happened is that if you look at the form then divides it up for the jury into two separate conspiracies so they never were confronted with the decision of what was the guilty of the overall conspiracy or not broken up into two separate conspiracies and that's the problem and the reason it's so prejudicial in this case is because remember what the government did they took a conspiracy that had at its car the area that i feel is brothers i think they're one of the largest and through all of that evidence against the wall against mr kravitz even though he was supposedly involved at least the acts were from late night you want to early ninety two they put on evidence about gun fights l made a strategic decision to go after all of the witnesses that the government put on the stand he called them scum he called them any number of names in connection with their testimony his own  testified during the trial he denied any knowledge of these individuals that was the strategy that was undertaken in this case i think that is an important factor that the court needs to look at and try to make a determination whether this special verdict form really in any way took away an opportunity for him to present a defense i think judge moskowitz in reviewing the twenty to fifty five appeal addresses that issue very clearly and he says he found that there was sufficient evidence to link mr corrales to the marijuana aspect the that's not my question why did you even discussed or think of operating marijuana in this case when you do you couldn't learn it as to this particular distended there was no evidence that would necessarily link him to the marijuana as one of the objects it was a charge in the count as part of the overall conspiracy that was charged other individuals charged in this indictment were involved in the marijuana and that's reason was charged and that's why it was so important to request of the  talking about the verdict i'm talking about you conspiracy involving cocaine and marijuana correct that this defendant had nothing to do with marijuana and you knew he had nothing to do with marijuana yet you including him with request to the term and whether he's involved and in fact there is a trauma mission that he was not involved is a clear indication that they were paying very close attention and linked him to the cocaine as it was charged and not to the marijuana so i don't think with prejudice or any way into joining your here i would go back to the analysis by the district court in which again you have to take a close look at the overall jury instructions combined with a special verdict form and i think the instructions t callahan read directly on point with your instruction fourteen and your instruction fifteen where they ask you have to determine which objects one or both that he agreed to conspire to distribute and you have to unanimously make a decision so i think those kind of jury instructions taken in conjunction with a special verdict form certainly lead lead one to the correct result which is that there was no constructive amendment of this particular conspiracy charge is a court have any other questions with with regard to there are not appear to be any other questions thank you for your argument h not guilty verdict on instruction fifteen which is a separate conspiracy defense and the government's point that this was strategic decision cannot be used to avoid that result because we never had here in this case judge michael with although he said there was not incompetence of counsel i think the only thing that can defeat that would be if there was no prejudice if they weren't good motions that's true if there was no prejudice but i think that then you know that that's sort of a little different than the wall and that's where there was a good argument for this defense my point is that if the government tried to say this was received decision not to argue this which is what they seem to be saying then we need an open injury here because there's no evidence it was there decision the lawyer never said it was