a gun and he carries his gun wherever he goes now my wife and i we don't like guns we tell him he comes to our house you can't bring his gun he doesn't visit much but every now and then we have to visit him family obligation now suppose we go and we have to what you're saying thank you for letting me know so we get in an argument in the street and the truth people were in an argument with run down the street and we chased after him and the next thing i know i my in laws pulled out his gun and shoots him if i have a chance to react now as a matter of absolute truth i'm not guilty of any crime i didn't know what my in laws going to do i mean it's in your case the problem is the jackson standard could any reasonable juror have concluded that won each along with his brother decided to kill the what killed the two and then one and shouldn't say a ha no gun some have nothing to do with that he went with his brother back to the confrontation with the gun and then and after the confrontation there with the flight now the flight didn't impress me all that much because whether it was planned or not there was reason to flee but running together to get the gun i wonder why that isn't as the surviving witness before the whole confrontation happened what happened i told walking down the street i think they were exercising if he won and murdoch and his brother talking to some people in the white pickup i think was a family and there's not evidence except speculation as i see it that when one ran he knew they were running together and the other part of bothers me it somehow right there's no weapon right now i believe that all you could you would claim that it's not a look at there's evidence that one ran somewhere with his brother and after that he stands behind his brother had a confrontation knowing his brother's got a gun on the side so then given that w to give me your best argument that there still is no reasonable inference or evidence that meets the standard of aiding and abetting because we don't know what one is specifically intending to which is the intent element under california law whether the intent of group as of committing or encouraging an offense is shown and i have some problem with whether there's a sufficient act or that going back to my example of the own law i know my in law has a gun that's why we don't invite him into our house and i have a motive i have an opportunity we have swiped we have considered action but there's no and i've watched this videotape the officer says that during the interview he twice admitted that he did go out to the street to protect his family you know like i guess i would say factors to help you build on a foundation if you have some mens rea or access rights you can have a guilty conscious and not because of a crime you could have anything that might indicate a go to conscious but there really isn't one the point is that you still need some sort of evidence of what he's actually specifically intending to do and you still need some evidence of him actually assisting and eating and the last these things individually are not enough for him to gather somehow they're supposed to be enough t testimony that in the interrogation the admitted to being out in the street i really didn't quite see there and i'm wondering if there's i saw a transcript where he says yeah one question but giving under the jackson's fandor probably have to say a jury could diseases out there that's what that in the records that he gave the got those not or that he gave ammunition to his brother you know if we were in the garage you may want to save some time for rebuttal ok i have the feeling from the trend of argument that we're going to have a lot of questions for your adversary and she will probably have answers and then you'll be taking to respond like  beyond just being here we have well to answer a question that judge gould had earlier is there any case that puts meat on the bones of what aiding and abetting means yes there is in our in our brief we cited  or encourage the crime judge and some elements of the people and among the factors that may be considered our presence at the scene of the crime which we have here companionship which we have here conduct before and after the crime brother is going to kill as opposed to intimidate you these and we know that his brother believed that these men were the ones who shot the house and we know that he had problems with these victims in the past and that his house was shot up only an hour and a half earlier as the victims are walking across the street he seems he sees the victims and he and his brother could i see that the jury can infer that he knew his brother was carrying a gun when they came back but i haven't seen any evidence from which i think a jury prefer that when they first ran they were running in his mind and was mine to get a gun so my listing anything on that if one wanted to disavow what his brother was doing why would he then come back with him to confront the and stand behind it as a different question i'm asking you is there any evidence that supports that one couldn't for that when one first ran with his brother he knew he was going to get a gun and confront these victims together he went there and they confront the brother confront them but it's also right in front of his home so it's not like going across town for a confrontation it's not in front  his he lived in trailer eighteen which bordered the street and the testimony of the victim was that they walked the both dependent on his brother ran past their own home and then the victim's past that home and then these two popped up from behind a ford blazer now why are they hiding why are they why be popping out from behind a printout of this bothering me here and i think you better deal with it to put my mind at rest suppose i'm taking my family to go hiking in the area we sometimes hike canel mountain trail it's called and some time to get in the car and i say oh wait a minute i forgot my gun and i go back inside to get a forty four magnum it happens and so i get the gun my wife knew i ran back to get the gun nevertheless my wife would be very surprised if i shot a person she would even be very surprised indeed if i big nuisance so even though she knows i ran back to get the gun and even though she knows i have a gun and even though she knows i'm going into a potentially confrontational situation with critters that want to kill us  she'll still be real surprised if i use a gun and i'm trying to think what's the difference i'm thinking let's say juan moses brother is called back to get the gun knows that gun just in case things get out of hand with these these people well i think that's why when we look at mike going back for the gun for the very my wife saying you know if my husband went out and shot a bear that he didn't have a right to shoot in self defense i'm not an accessory to what my husband did because i didn't know he was going to do that would your wife then lie to the police which she run away and leave when they're innocent all the time just because it was these are everybody with any sense so i mean i think we have a number of different that's where the other factors come into play so we not only have presence and companionship but we also have a motive  of and we have thing about it and a lie every time some romantic relationship goes sour people have motives all over the place and they don't do anything about it almost all the time i'm trying to figure out what this kid did well let me talk about something else there's a couple of theories in this case a couple of theories of liability one is that he specifically intended to kill the victim and there's also  acts by standing there is that he provides backup support so that it's to ontario is that of the one on one well in case anything goes wrong in case that you know that to do about it he has no gun you don't even have a baseball bat you just stand there the california case where someone who was standing behind someone else didn't say anything didn't have a weapon on them in a situation like this if it's not right in front of his o so i have my own view about what is necessary for anything in a betting in general but i'm really interested in california precedents and to study those is there any california case that has had a fact pattern and  words you could that in my state briefs i did cite two cases i cannot recall at this point what the specific facts of those cases are however i stated that although he committed no overt act with respect to the shooting appellant provided assistance by making himself available to act as felix's backup in the event things did not proceed as planned and giving the impression of a greater show of force than if felix confronted the two victims alone and i cited and i see yes cited so i mean that indicates bear it's not it doesn't follow from having one that you're going to kill anything with it right and shoot it well i think it follows that if you have a history of bad relations with someone else that person you believe has just shot up your house and then you get a gun to confront them i think it's i'm afraid that if i i really want to talk to this person who keeps scaring my family but i'm scared of them myself so before i talk to him i want to make sure that if the talk goes sour i can defend myself you have started up so that there is a hike attentional for violence and the person who standing next to you backing you up going with you seeing you get the gun and then joining you knows that there's a very good chance something's going to go wrong and you're going to need to use that gun right some crazy parents in my family potentially deadly ways and i go across to talk to that neighbor but i arm myself before a girl then i'm responsible for anything that goes wrong those victims did not confront the defendants the defendants confronted the victims they were the ones who behind a car parked out confronted them with a gun and then shot them and we're supposed to believe that some minor had no idea what was going to happen and then on top of that we have the motive we have the flight and we have the lying to the police he told  car after the shooting is well yes it's shortly after the shooting i mean all of these things do we have direct evidence we don't have like the smoking gun in this case this is not the case where you know that you have the you know bloody victim lying on the ground in the person with the gun in his hand but we don't need that i mean we're the jackson standard is that we have another guy well but the jackson standard asked for reasonable inferences and even if you even if you're honest believe that there are different things we didn't get to talk about the other issues but at least i'm satisfied on the briefing on them thank you thank you counsel don't know what he was thinking what he was doing or what he was telling his brother he's telling his brother don't do this people cool head or ok you got the gun just keep it on him and don't do anything with it unless they attack you we don't know it's all speculation and speculation whether or not he wanted to do anything it which just were you know the testimony was i'm walking down the street with those who end up being the victim here in the direct evidence of everything circumstantial evidence and inference are plenty good enough for the whole conviction what i'm saying is this fact of whether or not these people even walking in the forest and the bear attack you the person who's with you under the government's theory it's only libel figure actions because of the knowledge of the presence and maybe not thinking straight meanly after the act and i did talk real fast and i didn't understand what you fifteen correct i think it's i don't find it unusual for the brother to be taken along with his older brother in front of his house who was two doors away where this happened even went a little bit beyond our house and i think we're giving a fifteen year old away too much credit for making