reversed their convictions although we raised many arguments and our priests and of course i'm happy to entertain the court's questions on any of our issues i'd like to focus on two areas for my argument time the st is that the government's theory of prosecution counts even taken on their own terms do not satisfactorily federal funds bribery in this case the nd sort of key issue i'd like to address is the impact as many critical evidence cherry and instructional errors on the outcome of this trial so turning to the st issue the government's concession that these universities were not in the business of recommending financial advisors for basketball players it might have been true i understood in their brief that they their view is that the university center in the business of guiding and advising students general late and that the basketball program me why not why it why would the business of the university not include any action of any employee let's assume it's somehow related to their gender to their work but why not presumably if you had a librarian who was taking bribes to buy certain journals that the university didn't need or even that they did me that's related to their job duties right so why why why wouldn't it be as long as it's job related i guess i don't see why it wouldn't be quite broad if you have a small organization if you have a small town getting federal funds and there are only two employees  then i guess you only have to worry about two people's employer employment duties but if you have a large university well i guess all of them are bound not to take bribes right q comment on that the purpose of that week we argued that it is not the business of think each there are several critical elements within the bribery statute each of which has been sort of separately tested the whether or not a nexus requirement is should be read into the statute in it and  it's now but for example the university is a large and city some divisions of it notably the financial aid department except financially except federal aid more than ten thousand dollars but there is no evidence that the value of the program excepts federal aid nor would it make sense that it would given that it is extremely financially and independently wealthy and so what we have is something more a that money is fungible and affecting money one dollar place that that money somewhere else doesn't apply here because there's there's no there's no impact these defendants conda or the assistant coaches conduct that luxury so you know mike there with the theory you're ging us to is to a top is that it seems to me that the purpose of the statute is the federal government does not want to give its money to an institution that's corrupt  to the extent that it's simply easier in gauging in corruption the fact i mean i'm not sure you you persuade me that the federal government is only concerned if the corruption pertains to the money it's contributing to the institution federally funded and so we have a problem with stating gates didn't if they were not university employees so i'm not sure that that persuades either but judge soudan said he had a number of questions anything more on mind before i turn it over back to him  there in part to guide students to internships and postgraduate employment if i paid professors to steer me closer steer me interns is your  very much appreciate it judge thank you the nd broad category is the impact of some of the evidence cherry and instructional areas that we allege in our breed rather than breaking out by type of error i think makes sense to break it up by defendant because there are some different hotel in new york city where he meets with really everybody involved in this case and that meeting is video and audio recorded the nd is at the end of july the government's theory that he is on the phone arranging for certain coaches to meet with dolphins in series and d'angelo in in las vegas the so called vegas coaches meeting and there are a number of evidentiary areas that really affected the jury ability to evaluate the evidence against mr carter both of those moments in the case so as it pertains to the june th meeting mr blazer was allowed the government's cooperating witness was allowed to testify over sternness objection and really without any foundation understanding was that mr carrados paid two thousand dollars at that meeting and exchanged for future services and this is extremely important because the government argued cuz of mr player blazers testimony that on june t code joined an agreement and joined a conspiracy to pay bribes the college coach but when pressed on it mr blazer explained that his only basis for his understanding was his presence at the meeting he had no prior contact with mr code he didn't know mr code had never met or heard of mr code until june th and so what that means is that the jury who were they able to view the video and view and listened to the  late pinioned testimony because our precedent recognizes that protests in same conversations can sometimes have insights that you really had to be there to because the video necessarily captures alleviates particular viewpoint and my mis understanding your argument i think only slightly judge and i mean like a six years my opinion testimony is not formed this opinion from his answer is that he believes it's quote everywhere in the transcript and so mr glaser for example is given the opportunity to defend his opinion and said well you just had to  was his body language it was a wink and a nod that you can't quite see on the video then certainly he would be in a position to give the jury information that they did not already ask but that's not his testimony that was not the foundation laid by the government not the testimony given by mr pla or by his own terms of making this opinion based on exactly the information available to the jurors and because of that it invaded their product and because of that every step and one the fact that it was on video is simply we did not object we don't object on appeal to the government's ability to force their testimony explaining what that jargon means and so the fact that there would be a video or not a video would be immaterial on the question of whether or not they testify that that what we're talking about is mr glaser relying on exactly the information available to the jury to draw an inference that i was the jurors a role to draw not concession when he's referring to a i believe one sentence and a motion regarding the university's not being in the business of recommending advisors that was clearly taken out of context i was just responding to defense counsel's arguments that initially were we're dealing with sort of the business of running a sports fern and we're just making a point that like obviously university is not a sports management firm that makes a profit off of reckoning a s but what is clear and what we argued in our brief and more importantly what would be alleged in our indictment was that the business that the schools are in is running an athletics program and included in that is running a basketball program and these coaches as their job are responsible for running that program which includes advising players on the court and by the players off the court and we did allege specifically with respect to agents and i would just point t if you are the jurors we argue that the coaches commit the crime because they use their influence as coaches to steer the players that's why they are being bribed at it but how was it in connection with the business of the university what was your theory that that year our theory was a lot when i tried to articulate was that the coaches have a responsibility to advise the players both on how to run certain plays and on other things in general in particular agents and that's why there was a lot of testimony at trial about particularly aspect of agents and the efforts that the universities make to ensure that agents are registered with the university that they are kept in the loop in terms of the contact with their student athletes chancellor even talk about how the university offers their resources in terms of conference rooms for the agents to meet with the players and explain why that was that was because they wanted to protect the they want to look out for the players they want to protect the players they called it was their responsibility and that they obviously also want to protect school and make sure that they were in compliance with rules  so again what was argued in what you haven't was wasn't that that the the coaches and the and as employees of the universities the schools responsibilities included protecting the players specifically as it came to would point to the court also to the jury instructions that the but i just actually gave which made it clear that we are not alleging that violating in ca rules is a violation he defendants knew what they were doing is wrong and they were aware that they want supposed to be doing the single it is an evidence of that is the fact that there are rules governing this is no different in many public corruption cases where maybe a typical one where it involves a public official that the defendant's corruptly or attempted to influence or reward the best book coaches in connection with some business or transaction of the university namely the operation and administration of the men's basketball program that's what he and this is awful and i said that part of the reason they're bribing them are the main reason they're bribing coaches is because they're coaches and it's their job to guide in terms of agents and in some respects police them in terms of keeping agents away from the players this was discussed particularly as it relates to lamont evans use a coach from oklahoma state and university of south carolina so there was the record had evidence of the fact that what we are well in terms of what we're talking about with agents was a part of the coach's job and was it part of running a basketball program in your view is running an n c double a compliant program and not that's the only  going to the jury that's the only evidence that was presented to the jury is that enough to support a conviction under sixty six dollars if you're driving someone to influence into two to not run it perhaps but  are that that wasn't it was it is true so merely in the jury instructions the jury instructions were running a basketball program and and there's no speaker significance between including the other mostly about the employment contracts of the coaches to give a sense of what the university understood their role to be in terms of the employees and they also talked about the fact that was included is to be admit it or and as your expect the coaches to comport themselves in a way that helps the student with that process and that's why they have they went through the procedure they have in place to do that and that included agreeing to even be in the room with the student athlete when they're when they're meeting with the advisors even asking questions for them and again explain why why would they do that they do that because they view it as their role to help a student athlete in addition to helping the so your view is that a false exculpatory became appropriate because he testified at trial my view is that it became relevant once it was clear that he was going to use his prior statements as it's going to a statement and if i could direct to the actual charge the judge gauge was a little bit different than the one you're on and just read yeah i know it well i believe that defense counsel is not arguing that it's incorrect based on  trial testimony i would see where you might have an argument i'm not sure how whether it will persuade but you would have an argument that what he's really referring to is the out of court statement but here our concern is that the way it was charged and the way it rose all suggests that it says testimony now the the charge i would think you might warrant for  entitled to if you're going to argue that court and testimony is false and part and therefore the whole should be rejected but i don't see how you're entitled to the  would just point to specific language that was actually news in this charge where we argued it's very clear he's not referring to darkest testimony as in fact he says words like statements there were multiple  and your honor it's my my intent was to discuss of politics bill perry statements because i represent both defendants i didn't have a chance to get to mr dawkins during my original time i don't know that i have a tremendous not to add to the conversation of the court address mr boone except to say mr angelo both of them well predate the filing of charges in this case at a moment in time when mr dotson said no reason to believe that he was being investigated for a crime and so the sort of underlying principle for a government's theory of what constitutes a false cult the tory statement even assuming argument though their argument that it was not directed at trial testimony even though i think the plain sort of the plain reading lends itself to  bill through his testimony that his credibility which was properly before the jury was really the central term defining characteristic of if that made it extremely harmful that the court und i would encourage the court to look not to what could have happened though it did and i can understand there's a difference between the charges i'm just wondering whether it's different enough for us to identify pranks yes i believe that it is  all right well thank you both we will reserve decision