honors this is a case it's really about the rule twenty nine dollars motion in which the district court with respect to mr campbell right after a very short trial said it's a close case and the issues are very close there are two problems for the government with respect to sufficiency they're somewhat related they're factual interest external one is that there is not sufficient evidence of the marijuana conspiracy charge in the indictment and there is not sufficient evidence for saying that the homicide that occurred was in furtherance or during or in relation that marijuana conspiracy so both of them are on a conspiracy and the connection are lacking none of the none of the condition of conspiracy that this court has relied upon in prior indictment with respect to streets whether there was prolonged cooperation between the parties a level of mutual trust standardize dealing sales on credit quantity of drugs involved affiliation with the  great if you think you're going to rob my brother you've got another thing coming government points to the so called getaway bag so there were circumstances surrounding the murder that had some link to drugs  there were evidence sufficient to demonstrate a conspiracy between the brothers that would get us past the st right and then the only question is whether your client is sale on the corner of the next block you know the far corner an hour later he's arrested with streets in front of the building where streets get he's feeling mr peter doesn't i mean rather just well no evidence of any such conversation there's no evidence of any of that right there's no direct evidence that anyone other than perhaps peter was aware of the reasons why this is taking the bag related to mr campbell there's nothing forensic there's nothing that connects it to any to that one prior sale only ten months before eight months before the homicide is his sale there's just it's just so attenuated it's affirmed they are not this case there is some course of during that exists that creates that and with respect to the homicide that's just floating i mean that's just a hypothetical based on a theory that is not confirmed in the record in the slightest so i think that in that context to say that the homicide then all of a sudden comes back and proves the marijuana conspiracy you haven't even got to stage one which is campbell's connection to the marijuana conspiracy you know in  of faces that are prosecuted under the rubric of murder in aid of racketeering where the rest hearing motive overlaps with other possible motives and so on and really what we're talking about is a jurisdiction referring to the quote conspiracy bat you said they had cleaned out streets apartment it was not streets apartment that the the fence left from it was shown peter's apartment i just wanted to clarify that and just to link that together there was no evidence that anything in that that had any correlation to showing peter's brother streets now they are brothers so there is a relationship between them but there was no evidence of any agreement whatsoever that they ever sold together that they ever sold for one another that they had any stake in each other's dentures brothers mr robinson lived in the same building that street had his residence or his apartment he was looking for streets who was his preferred and go to dealer he called his brother he said do you know where your brother is either showing peter did or did not know where his brother was and there was a couple of occasions where and when mr robinson you're trying to trying to rub my man street you've got another thing coming that would be a battered says these these are the government it's the fact that they're brothers that lets you make the argument that they're not and it together they're just brothers so they do have brothers who for each other and they're not really part of the same the same yes i agree with that but in and of itself knowing as martina testif that streets was an easy mark for people in the neighborhood to rob or in some way harm the fact that a brother who sees people dressed in black masks armed and with guns prowling the neighborhood and going to that home and then passing that home this is not establish a drug conspiracy or a motive for shooting that occurs later on to have been in relation to a drug conspiracy even the government conceded that there could have been a personal reason the fact that julian martinez pointed a gun to s peters head and pulls the trigger two to three times to shoot him in the head that is a very strong motive perhaps for retaliatory action but certainly not motive for a murder and i represent the other guy and when i see him not to mission the seriousness of this proceeding i'm referring to my client as the other guy because that's how he was referred to at the trial the government even conceded in their brief that there was no as they called it pre merger evidence with respect to stephen site or anyone who testified about marijuana at the trial did not mention steve insider and even the government adopted the language the other guy when referring to my client mr sighter so the only evidence that the government possibly had here is what the government calls post murder evidence related to to marijuana and that would be the bag that comes out of shawn peters not out of st us home after the fatal shooting but that alone does not prove that my client was involved in a marijuana conspiracy st of all the government hasn't proven the existence of the marijuana conspiracy between my client and streets there was no evidence that my client ever met streets there was no evidence that my client even knew that streets lived on bill avenue you were sold marijuana there there was no evidence that my client was aware that brian great to see east and julian martinez had attempted to rob streets and then julian martinez tried to shoot sean peter twice there was no evidence that my client even knew about that and that's why the district court said it was a very close case and reserved reserved decision on the rule twenty nine motion  they haven't proven the existence of the conspiracy which is the linchpin for the entire case they haven't proved that my client knowingly and intentionally joined the conspiracy the marijuana conspiracy i don't want to say conspiracy because we might whatever language you're going to use absent the marijuana conspiracy at least not of my client my client didn't have a prior marijuana sale my client had never been present when anyone sold marijuana drug operation so you're just saying that the jury can make the rational and the district court side the fact that he was involved in state now gray went to new jersey make sure you see all the cell phone with campbell  a i think it's a specious argument i don't believe there is a basis for such an inference there inferring that somehow with no evidence of it there inferring that sean peter must have told my it's carried only by one person the bag contains false identifications with pictures and the name of sean peter are we now going to infer that my client was involved in a conspiracy to commit identity fraud there's no evidence that might just because there's pot just because just to have the contents of the bag you can't and being accused of possession of guns i mean that's the most likely inference to be drawn and they're trying to get medical attention for shawn peter who had just been shot and maybe schumpeter didn't want to leave behind evidence of what was in his house in case the police somehow ended up there later in the night ok those are all reasonable inferences but there's no evidence to suggest that just because those things were in the bag that my client previously had been involved in a marijuana conspiracy now i would submit that the government really went over the line in this case by waiting until the rule twenty nine arguments for the st time to suggest that they had got to lester street where sean peter lived and where the bad came out of prior to the shooting to retrieve guns prior to that that before the shooting right it was their evidence or not evidence that affect the there was not evidence except that the government then made this torture argument which is the subject of point two in my brief which is the prosecutor misconduct they made this torture argument and i and i would just i want to quarrel argument in the district court i would just beg the court to to look at ex government exhibit four o five b and c have a government narrated what occurs at four o five b they say that jason campbell is placing guns into the trash can after the shooting and they did this in open court in front of the jury when the when the individual is not placing guns in the trash can he was taking them out he was taking the map so the government in route twenty nine dollars forecast that they were going to be somehow arguing that the defendants contrary to the prior narrative had gotten to sean peters house prior to the shooting and retreat guns now that video of them going to sean peters house the shooting and they stashed the guns during war twenty nine the forecasts they were that they were going to say that they retreated the guns before hand and then it was this big sleight of hand where they had this target my argument which we didn't even understand at the time and i'm going to bleed into another topic which i which i will ask you to get me a lot to get to just briefly that they argue that there was a three minute time period the shooting they run away from the shooting at six minutes after the hour at eight minutes after the hour they arrived down south at lester street is where sean peter lives they go to get a trash can they put guns in the trash can eight minutes after the hour they walk away from this trash cans and they go down south away from the murder the murder happened happened had happened up there were we learned for the st time during rule twenty nine sort of and clearly in the closing arguments the government was arguing that during that three minute period when they st came back to the house that when they went south away from the murder away from the murder and they go around the block  walk and they come back in less than three minutes afterward from the other direction that during that three minute three minute time span they had somehow gotten south somehow circled back up north committed the murder and then come back down from the opposite why you moved to that last one of them one minute on the west point yet the target my argument was that  during the testimony of detective green he said that certain videos at lester street where approximately eleven hours and other videos were approximately twelve hours if we had known the government was going to go in that direction we would have crossed checked of green on whether he checked that the type ranged on and getting directly to the point it during summations the government matched up one light other addresses on baxter haven't you three minutes later and that's how they changed the time frame of the lester street cameras by three minutes but they played an exhibit that was twelve seconds long showing one set of gone past that we didn't know they were going to make this argument and after the trial went when you look at it and i have this in the in my appendix if you look at the full three minutes three police cars pass those two other address  may please the court my name is saga robby i'm an assistant united states attorney in the southern district of new york i represent the government on appeal and i represented the government in the proceedings below the detail and well reasoned forty five page decision judge buckwild properly denied the defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal on the basis of insufficient evidence and their motions for a new trial now i'll turn st to the motion judgment of acquittal i judge judge lynch correctly laid out the elements here and with respect to the st evidence was there a marijuana conspiracy i don't think that there is any reasonable dispute that there is evidence in the record that streets at a marijuana operation and that marijuana operation was operated and among other locations the stash house on own bill avenues that was a stadium stash house that brian gray attempted to the bottom floor mr robinson testified was frankly an empty apartment it was a stash house it was where streets operate it is marijuana operation he also operated in other areas but  robinson to streets in order to purchase marijuana and that both the the peter brothers sold marijuana out of also a separate quarter weed store there was a known weed spot in the neighborhood  that is an area where streets hung out with all three defendants there's evidence in the record of that these defendants are all hanging out at a known weed spot so and steven sater in particular as hanging out with known drug dealers again that streets schumpeter and jason campbell jason campbell was also selling marijuana down the street from the same stash house and he wrote it as far as mr sider is concerned your  and that's the evidence i'm with you real life save a reasonable jury could be rude that site or knew what was afoot not just that he was going to murder someone for no particular reason or because somebody made him do so  satyrs role in particular is to be viewed in that context but then we get to the later events right we have the day that brian gray attempted to rob the stash house again that's a stash that jason campbell is connected to john peters connected to streets is connected to and peter and just to correct the record you know defense counsel judge bianca i think you indicated that you know sean peter didn't just confront martinez about rob you know you're not are you going to rob my brother you've got another thing coming he also confronted great so he st went and confronted gray in the middle of the night and then he circled the block and came around again and circle missed and confronted mr martinez so just that evidence by itself indicates that you know shawn peter you know was protecting that stash house again this can't be a random siddons that he sells weed with his brothers shon and then has them protecting the stash of us then we get to two weeks later there is an orchestrated coordinated planned murder hit participant he wasn't just he wasn't mr robinson that just came in on the van after the murder had taken place even sadder and jason campbell initiated this attack on the day of the murder they spotted case i agree the role alone is not enough but when you couple that with the evidence of his preexisting relationship with these defendants in streets of their nexus to marijuana as well as the evidence after the murder personally personal issue a personal dispute that these three defendants were doing this murder for but that does not explain the active roles that stephen sider and mr campbell had and that they would commit a murder to simply help a friend confront brian gray who didn't even try to shoot him it doesn't make sense and again going to the active role in the murder stephen sider is the one who st spotted them then after they retrieve their guns in unison they went back to where the victims were located and according to eyewitness wrong beddes it was actually steven sider that was the st shooter he's the one who negotiated the attack on gray and the other three victims and and then of course they all came back and stashed their firearms in all enter sean peters apartment in unison and again it wouldn't make sense a steven sater would be leading this attack you know if then you couldn't for and tent in agreement to that conspiracy and that's what we have here now the post post murder evidence is also significant that three defendants go into sean peters apartment they there for approximately nine thousand and ninety minutes and again this is all within a couple blocks of the stash house and the weed store we're talking only a couple block radius of all these events happening and they they walk out in peter the agast placed wide open in the middle of the back seat in which peter and side are sitting when you look at the bag when it was found it was wide open you could see marijuana you could smell the marijuana emanating from the bag so of course everyone in that vehicle knew exactly what was in that bag but separately after they get to the hospital steve insider and sean peter go to the hospital and  is left in the custody of jason campbell and that's important because not only does it show that you know he has a mutual trust relationship with these other two defendants which is clear from the other evidence but that bag is very important  why is it important it contains evidence of all of their crimes it contains a pound of marijuana which is clearly a distribution quantity it controlling the marijuana tool the distribution which includes actually small hundreds of plastic baggies and actually baggies pre prepackaged with marijuana that was ready to sell it contain three thousand dollars and drug proceeds and importantly it also contains evidence linking them to the murder and not just one of them it contained evidence linking all of them to the murder there was every mission three different kinds of ammunition and spent shell casings in that bag which matched the type of ammunition that was found at the scene of the murder as well as the bodies recovered from the bodies of gray and stephen fidler sorry one of the other victims and it also contained a cell phone and one of the victims  d also contain an i d and a fake name which was the same i d and an idea in the same name was also found on steven siders person so again this is a bag that's clearly involved in these defendants in unison taking this bag putting all their evidence of their crimes and trying to get away with it and going to the hospital where afterwards they're arrested for that bag and of course they then tell if in unison coordinated fte cover stories about what happened that day this all just goes to show that these three defendants were accorded an all had an interest in what was going to happen here  detail with detective greene and actually initially we asked him to describe what he saw in the videos and that was objected to by the defense they indicated to the judge that we don't need a witness describe what's in the videos know the jury can decide it's any lay person can decide what they see in the videos and so we didn't have detective green testify as to what he viewed in the videos we simply showed the videos and your honour's can look at the videos themselves  but they they they show and what we believe the jury found and we proved at trial was that the defendants are clearly getting firearms from the trash cans to begin with they go to the scene of the murder and then they return and they stash the firearms and you know the jury can certainly see that from the videos themselves and we laid out at trial detail framework with how the timing of those videos worked and about them coming after the murder and and then you know stashing firearms and then retrieving them later simply doesn't make any sense given the overwhelming evidence that it was  are the is a kind of overall a script of videos and those do show there's a set there's in time order they st come to the trash cans and then approximately three to four minutes later they come back to the trash  can and from that evidence the jury can certainly see there's video there's no there's no question these are two different episodes of interaction with the christians not dragons angles to you that right ok object but there it is blurry video and the argument the argument about whether that or some other object is being within or taken if it is a gun it would not make a lot of sense that it was sure what that gets gives the defense but but i you know the clear matter is that we all the videos were in evidence we we made the arguments we made about what the video showed the defense clearly made the same arguments that they your honor i want to answer more directly the question about the evidence about the peter brothers allegedly selling drugs at this corner store as the government just argued all that evidence comes from the testimony of one witness and i streets and he never said he did so regularly the government used all three of those phrases and they're not supported by be evidence the government used it in their closing arguments in rule twenty nine and now to be used in the appeal out that it's a very tough situation for to make an argument that even though there appears to be evidence of a murder there's no jurisdiction here because there's no nexus to a marijuana conspiracy and i think the drug the judge jury was just inclined to convict because they had evidence of what appeared to be a murder it's more of a legal argument and it's more they changed the video at six minutes after the hour suddenly during rule twenty nine dollars argument and closing argument that was no longer six minutes after the hour it was now i cannot i minutes after the hour because of this convoluted argument i still don't understand why it makes a difference if they are standing around it it's one thing if they understand the argument this garbage can stuff has nothing to do with guns or something like that mary probably wrong but  if they're at if it is gun and they're at the graphics hands before and then they're at the garbage cans at some other point doing something else how how did that make any sense they didn't throw away the guns and every something they got in the bag is going to read different people different three different guns but it doesn't make them part of streets is marijuana conspiracy it doesn't make the shooting of brian gray and this was all a way for the government to argue that and use the word is absurd is the ticket was to think that they didn't all know what was in the bag and collectively possessed everything in the act and i'm up putting out the fire arts that's the murder i'm talking about the marijuana they're trying to type to try to use the marijuana in the bag to prove the existence of a conspiracy a marijuana conspiracy to prove sighters no one participation in that conspiracy and to prove the nexus so they strengthen that argument by my argument to the jury that he that he had bent about location prior to shooting as if he controlled that location all right thank you rob you know i think you will hear the argument and