lawyer that the various documents quick books computer quick works programs the documents be preserved that they will exonerate her anyway for some reason  they did they were not they were gotten rid of they disappeared and and the question is can she be allowed to to bring this up in her criminal possession of p m s sorry and they disappear the problem that the where the district court went too far is in for bidding for bidding the point out that the documents weren't there but the documents were in the possession of what had been in the possession of m s i there was a specific request that these documents be preserved these documents would have helped because it would show that mr space was not i'm sorry not the documents the testimony about why the documents were missing or gone well for it would have helped it would have helped hiding expenses from his wife and wasn't stealing for her own benefit and that these documents which had which were in their possession and control had disappeared and in other words that they or she could argue that all right just when she was not she was only able to argue that they disappeared and not the bit not that p m s i had anything to do with it not even being allowed  how else would they have disappeared to p m s i didn't and then you know and then well the prop well the question is there's you know there's a significant difference between x and something accidentally being hauled off to the shredder and being and being intentionally well that's what i'm trying to get is suppose somebody had testified you mean she wanted to put on a witness who would say i intentionally destroyed just as she wanted to be able to ask not credible if that's that type of thing so any is there any factual basis behind that question well we do know the records existed ok we do know that records exist in the status of but specifically the dr sanderson destr well he was he would have been the one with number one he was the president of of p m s i the relevant time he worked there i mean he was he had if they work for him there were settlement statements paid you know settlement statements in other words things that go out which the paper copies would have disappeared the invoices that would have reflected  they were and they were they were in the possession of and the control of a corporation of which he was the president of which there were lots of other people there were there were there were other people there but i mean p able to ask about the use of funds asked dr sanderson about where the funds were going and what they were used in this case you know inquired about whether he was hiding money from the wife there was cross examination about that yes but but these believed in our asserted that these documents would have that these invoices these settlements statements would have corroborated by tourist her theory of the case her defense and and that she should have been allowed to ask and be able to make the argument and wet the chips fall where they may as far as the jury has jury is concerned they was the witness of whom these questions were an ass well you would have she got some either cash or items or that sort of thing well yes i mean that they were having that they presented evidence that her bank account monies flowed into her bank account  and the question is of course why did they flow into her bank account where they merely just reimbursing her or she says i was just being reimbursed for going out and buying things for  know was it i wasn't stealing that and this was his doctor you know dr sanderson was wanting to who was wanting to you know run this you know run this stuff through you know through the practice i just work there it's  or sanderson's money not mine that's the art and should be allowed to ask that i mean this was this was we submit an improper restriction on the right to present a defense it was clearly relevant under the relevan stache it was not harmless error under the circumstances of this case and we would ask our reserve time for a vote of course but we would ask that the court reverse the convictions and of course  please the court my name is jamie don't be on represent the united states district court correctly found that the evident any alleged destruction of documents evidence was not relevant to the crime of fire fraud that was charged here because it doesn't tend to prove or disprove wire fraud the district court also correctly determined that any minimal relevance of the alleged destruction of documents to a sales defense theory was outweighed by unfair prejudice misleading the jury confusion of the issues and waste of time if fail is not prevented from presenting a complete defense because she was allowed to examine with new witnesses on the missing documents the quick file and the failure of p m s i had to preserve her computer and trial defense council had an ex parte hearing with the court in which he conceded i don't think i have enough information to say dr sanderson destroyed the settlement statements the only thing on paper will abstain is they are missing there is no witness  can say who ordered the destruction documents and so there is no good faith basis for the record well wait a minute how do you know there's no witness who somebody can be well and if they find the right person somebody had to cause them to be that's are that's a fair point your honor however in this case there is a two day of evidentiary hearing regarding this alleged destruction of documents and the defense could not present a witness who could say who ordered the destruction or if they could it would have been the responsible for the destruction of the so why would it be so confusing to the jury for to simply allow dr sanders to be asked the question did you destroy the documents well your honor for one thing it's not really relevant to the crime dirty had evidence that was that the documents were destroyed right that they were missing correct and he said they disappeared when she left he was asked the question and he responded about whether they were missing and he when she left the other doctors were also asked about the documents they couldn't recall and i mean all nine witnesses testified about these documents at trial so she was able to present a complete defen regarding the fact that these documents were missing that her computer was not preserved mistah her lawyer testified at trial that she asked for these documents and they were preserved and they're worse that the two thousand and ten settlement statements were preserved and those were also presented at trial i mean those are preserved and could sound like sanderson was asked about this and didn't answer he was asked whether the documents whether he had the documents at trial i believe was the way the question was asked and he said no they disappeared after if they had left he was asked whether he still had the documents and what they want to do then ask how did they disappear correct was trying to hide expenses from his wife he was asked about that euro and and he was actually caught in rebuttal after a spate had testified at length about these payments she claimed she was making for him and he was called a rebuttal to refute that but the issue with these documents is that what they would have shown is how many got into the account not how many got out of the a cow and this the charges wire fraud so it has nothing to do with how she got this money out it is only relevant to this claim defense that these were reimbursements and she was allowed to present a significant evidence on this theory that accusing dr sanderson basically of authorizing the payments out and the other problem with that theory is that for example in two thousand and ten she transferred out more money than dr sanderson put in and said the bank records undermined and as i stated before she was and furthermore the substantial evidence of her guilt at trial otherwise make this the error any even though the district court did not air any error would be harmless because of that substantial evidence of her the heart of the defense is that that she was assisting assisting dr sanderson and merely saying all the records are there does doesn't get you doesn't get you where it doesn't get you where you need to go and does it and doesn't comport with the constitutional right to present a defense if you can't ask dr sanderson did you destroy the records why did you destroy the records or do you have any decent explanation about why the records are there if you didn't destroy them i mean there are all sorts of permutations of a question that that can be asked and when we do know there was a specific request at the outset of all this there was a specific request for the for the preservation of the records and i mean it would be only watch it will if you think you have been stolen from that you would you know you wouldn't put you know wouldn't put these in a box you would put these in a separate place you would segregate them in some way and preserve them they may be needed for a civil trial that may be needed for a criminal trial you don't just throw him in with you know with ten year old records of people having the flu and that get get rid of after certain time in other words there is a reason why you preserve it it's it what about the point th a department store she went somewhere that those paper records would also be there and that she could you know she could you know verify that if you know if there's an invoice there may be a serial number on it you know for the particular purchase that could be so who ended up with it i mean there are plenty of there plenty of possibilities there was also of course the second quick books program in which the what she asserted essentially the real records were in and not the not the form not the formal records that disappears through the computer that that the non internet computer that was hooked up to apparently disappeared as well happenstance that this was that this was at the direction of someone and to and and to not being allowed to ask the relevant person