attorney club or if you could meet your audio and video at this time let's pause for a minute and see if we can't solve that problem thank you chad if i t could confirm that the stream is paused you may call ahead we're back on the record thank you so as i was saying the miss joined with defender six through ten and count sixteen through twenty five in which they but not she were involved prevented that you're if you're making a reliable determination an overall conspiracy involving hernandez and i take it that was true and that was charge then there wouldn't be an a p problem so would you just help me understand that obviously hernandez was not a  objection a function of the fact that he himself was not at that defended at trial or is the basis for the objection that than the way the indictment is framed simply  and then just under saying that argument is the critical piece for that you told me on the face of the indictment that there's no way to read the indictment as in pompous saying in the conspiracy charge or any of the conspiracy charges as then that the objecting the defendant and all the others are charged in a common activity that encompasses all rich government as a result of his use of his influence in a corrupt me i'm not saying that the indictment be reading because that's the way as i understand  m disappointed but i guess what i'm a little bit confused by is suppose that you could have charged hernandez with an overarching conspiracy that involved these various component pieces and then the government chooses not to bring that charge against him in this trial and yet each of the different actors charged are both to the hub of that conspiracy run by hernandez under eight b is the government allowed to proceed with the conspiracy charges as framed here and i think and i'm inclined to read indictment as you do not to charge the  overarching conspiracy but then to say for the purposes we'd like to be able to explain the connection between these various actors by referencing the way they related to this missing figure hernandez is there any authority that suggests you can do that under eight been very convenient for the government but it was unfair unfairly prejudicial that sally love to have these two many trials in the middle and how the prosecution are you at the end you have to remember these things all go together two parties to the conduct that your client is charged with participating and one of them is hernandez why wouldn't the evidence of hernandez's role in these other activities which you're saying there's no evidence that your client dissipated and why wouldn't the evidence of his participation in those activities at least have been relevant to show his likely conduct with respect to your client for the activities she was charged  wouldn't it have been evidence that would support the government's case against your client to show how hernandez was engaged in at the very same time all kinds of similar conduct to bribe various government officials in puerto rico why but the government is not restricted to just accepting that there's no dispute on that point they can make their case i'm just a is it relevant to their case to put in evidence about hernandez's conduct with respect to these other activities even if your client isn't charged with those activities given the time frame in which they occur it is i'm fairly prejudicial to start the extortion of a sewer cleaner payment of somebody question which is what would you have had a successful forty three challenge if you wanted to split all that hernandez evidence i believe so your honor on the grounds that there was no relevance and of any prejudice outweighed the relevan even though there was no evidence that those contracts were backdated then he was given if they just did and besides your honour's if this environment is so confusing that judge and the prosecution have insisted on putting aside the prejudice point going back to jen so use questions yes it certainly the case that if the motion for mistrial endure was made at the time we're joined there was made at the time of the indictment and he had yet  that that would be a relevant time what is the government's position as to what we're supposed to do if at the time the ruling on the this joinder motion he has pled out i still think the court was correct in this case  enough information to make that determination but a simple question with respect to the people actually charge we're going to trial what is the overlap in them with  e mr winder argument the tenants miss trying to argument is not successful do we see not have to examine the rule fourteen prejudiced argument incredible over killed so what her nando's intent was when the glaring question is what was her intent in receiving the guess and the more you load up on his intent the more missed there is that it's going to carry over it made it more easier for the jury to make a determination in this case in that say if if they had made it easier the way the government presented know isn't there a certain sense to in the government wants to bring a combined case and the lead figure in the conspiracy is in the case at trial you're going to have an easier time putting more evidence about his conduct him if he's not in the trial then you're going after the more peripheral figure you're not even trying to prove the case against him and yet you're loading up on evidence of his conduct to prove what their intention was that just seems like what poor  designed to protect against as well as well fourteen well i mean your honor in this case because a majority of this evidence would come in and everything related to the earlier contributions related to how this scheme started who he was dealing with what agencies he was working with and everything else that is all related to why this whole conspiracy was in this case and that's why i think the court came up with a pair move and what we argued w rejected a request for a separate gratuity instruction in the thought of the government contends that with respect to the gratuity the government contends that with respect to the which accepted by the court was that the defense the prosecution theory was not gratuities didn't prosecute it return any sense therefore that instruction was irrelevant and i believe the record reflect if that was preserved no one thing your honor is that the district judge did not allow a moment after the instructions and before releasing the jury for counsel to approach and remove already reiterate tell you that you have a question or no i have one question about the sufficiency of the evidence which i meant to ask in the last round which obviously if there is merit to that we don't get to the rule fourteen issues and the pre questions about jointer with respect to the nexus between the official act which i take it is the granting of a contract and the giving of the gift what is your understanding of the theory of the nexus in other words what is the there was a stream of guess given and your honor looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the government i think you could say that it was given for favorable consideration in general contract favorable consideration in general and if there were no there there were no special benefits confer no i'm clear advantage conferred on he say i will do something or not but agree to do something in the future these were there are three or four significant gaps their timing made it impossible for them to  have any of the contracts and if there was any irregularity there's a witness who said oh i couldn't follow up on this contract well the fact is that contract that you were talking about was one that was between investment total risk and developed a system that apparently functions perfectly i don't believe that that shows our corrupt knowledge and i don't think that any of them show that she