good morning your honors my name is charles ross and along with timothy quill and anne marie mcavoy we represent marcus business it's an honor to be here before you all probable cause does not exist to extradite mar man he's an american citizen against whom there is absolutely no we're liable evidence to support a finding of probable cause that he ordered the death of the only evidence that he was part of the death are the testimonies and statement of charmin channel al an illiterate an educated at the time sixteen year old witness who even the government calls a confused teenager channel al testified in both court proceedings in guyana in july of two thousand and seventeen and april of two thousand and eighteen that he knows that death under oath he said he never made the statement attributed to him by the guy and he's police he also adopt this in an affidavit saying to the contrary that he did make them for statement yes your honor i think the affidavit came from a corporal laundry laundry was not present when that statement was supposedly taken but it was in within that after david was a statement from an inspector saying i think the police officer who attacked us that he was present when the statement was made that he read the statement read the statement out loud find that police officer singh was unreliable and i know you're on i disagree with that i do not think that you have to find that a police officer was lying in this case to find that the only witness witness if your claim is that the witnesses i never made that statement and there's something a sworn statement in the record where police are says he made the statement i read it out loud to him before he signed it why we wouldn't have to be making a credibility determination it's not a credibility determination your honor it's the underlying unreliability of the fact that mr channel radically contradicts himself throughout the proceedings here on the one hand there's the statement but on the other hand there are disavowal alls and he is just an on reliable person we're not here to convince your honour's that any one version of these radically your position that if someone contradicts himself they're inherently unreliable then if the if the and also in that in the later statement or the one across he appears to withdraw the statement before that he made a lot of the same statements about the details of the crime so even his his deposition had details of the crime well but judge there are the record is replete with radical contradictions and he's also an inherently i give  unreliability of unreliability on the on the part of this witness for example in the testimony that you're talking about your honor he doesn't even know his birth date he doesn't know his year of birth he doesn't know his dat birth there are all kinds of problems with the underlying reliability of of this witness now looking at the record as the extradition packet as a whole you have a witness who a contradictory statements did make some contradictory statements over the course of three different statements the st statement and an officer and his mother were present there's evidence that that statement was made clearly inculpate your  client but there are other people who have tested to an argument between the victim and your client to a beating it ministered by your client's bodyguard and others into the placement of the victim's body in a car that's part of the package we're in my misunderstanding something judge there may be evidence in this record that the death occurred by beating but the only evidence that connects marcus busy around to this death in any way is just i get it what you're missing judge is that mr brock hand did not see a slap that is not in the record mr an argument and then a direction to the body got to do something right  well the fact of the matter is that fire has now that was drunk he was threatening to kill himself he was just a bad guest at this party and the fact that mr busy may have spoken to mr brock and and said get him off the yard that's only natural he's the host of the party and this man is acting crazily and he's not a good guest here and presume that the body probable cause if if if there's an argument a direction to do something and then a killing why isn't there probable cause to believe that there was a direction to kill judge there simply is not the only the only absolutely only evidence a direction to to kill that's it broke can does not give us that he simply does not there was another witness who said to put him out that you are yes and that's what i'm saying judge  and you're saying that means escort him from the premises put him out the yard yes you have a lot of meanings well but but judge it certainly does not necessarily mean and it's certainly not probable conclude that put him out the yard means kill him i just don't think that's an appropriate inference i simply don't and there are there are other reasons to find that this particular witness  is simple we not not reliable as i said he's an educated he's illiterate he was sixteen at the time he's a confused teenager all teenagers are confuse that may be judged but this is the only evidence a confused teenager is the only evidence whatsoever that marcus business was connected to this death it's it simply has no other  the package has no other evidence that connects him he he certainly testifies that that the evidence that statement was one that he did not make he also adopts that statement and it's this radical flip flopping we're not trying to convince the court that any one given piece of testimony is argument now the government may point to corporal landry's affidavit they may point to the other affidavit the judge bianco made a reference to and again that simply does not matter it's the radical contradictions that are a problem here the government cites to other witnesses a chris bowlers and as a beer league as additional witnesses that can support probable cause here but they don't see anything related to mr b was somebody that it makes sense to ask to be put out of the are so just to finish up channel is the only audience here he's the only person the only piece of evidence that connects may please the court good morning your honour's nicholas moscow for the united states and women ordinary way the appellant got up and made a strong statement that there is no probable cause in this case the government disagrees but also knows that's not the appropriate standard to apply this is an extradition matter and in an extradition proceeding the appropriate standard is probable cause and he be his review of extradition decisions the appropriate standard is whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable cause to believe the accused guilty here there was ample evidence that for the reasons that the court was describing notably judge quot was presented with an eye witness affidavit describing the fight between mr rahman and the victim  describing the origin of the fight both describing the victim's borish behavior at the party his going outside to urinate mr business rahm's grabbing the victim in a manner that the victim did not appreciate and responded to by slapping mr buzz from it then describes mr best from giving the order to a number of men including his bodyguard to kill the victim it describes the beating and it describes how the five men beat the victim to death with paling staves while the victim lay there not responding that statement is corroborated by not only corporal laundries affidavit not only the statement of officer saying but also three other eye witnesses brought hand is also kno other escort him from the premises there's no evidence as to what it means your honor and there is evidence that ross to man the man to whom the instruction was given was missed a bit from his bodyguard that what happened subsequently as described by all three witnesses was a brutal beating inference is that what he told him what he told his subordinates is what his subordinates did that's the inference your honor and and that inference is both from what channel describes that he terms by all witnesses the beating was obviously brutal that involved the victim falling into the drain being pulled out and then the use of the paling steves that involves the victim saying boy which is corroborated by a number of the  witnesses the witnesses overlap in their descriptions is not complete but is sufficient to provide corroboration and there was no evidence before judge quo that any of the witnesses had at any point given a statement that was in any manner inconsistent  with what they said here in fact that evidence was not produced in chile a reply brief to the extradition court judge matsumoto one presented without evidence for the st time noted that there was no authority provided to her quo so while some of the materials the materials post dating that hearing clearly were not available to counsel the materials that are substantially identical were available and the strategic decision not to introduce them was made in part because the defense tactic has been to delay there's been an ongoing campaign of witness intimidation there's a record of that in the transcript and witnesses do lose memory over time in this case there is evidence that mr bush from committed murder in ghana he does not want to face the murder charges and he has made the concerted effort to delay his extradition that strategy has a number of of as involved a number of letters and requests to the court a joint appendix three hundred and twenty four he evidence that was before judge quo or the court to say evidence that let's let's assume all the evidence together i understand was that the way voices assume that all the evidence what's your response so his st statement described the beating in some detail his nd statement which is that government appendix three through which he in response to leading questions does say that he did not make that statement and then responded no to do you understand what i'm asking you i would also posit that his response not knowing his birthday things like that or are not suggestive of his being an unreliable witness but rather suggestive of his not understanding the nature of the proceedings and what was being asked of him at those proceedings that assumption is this further supported because in april of two thousand and eighteen at pages six hundred and forty to forty one  he provides confused testimony appearing to recant again in response to leading questions and then he ends with i don't have a reason i want to ask why his testimony from the morning is different from his testimony in the afternoon it's not a case in which it's clear what mr channel thinks that what he thinks is different from what he told the police that case does exist but those cases have been decided this is not one of those cases his alleged recantation is simply providing a defense attorney with the answers the defense attorney s elicit in handwritten transcripts that are typed up from gaieties proceedings in response to leading questions in general is not somebody who is so unreliable as to not be the basis for a magistrate judge a reasonable position there was probable cause again the question before this court is whether there was sufficient evidence for judge quote to make the determination that there was probable cause and should this court find that there was should should they find that his custody is not in violation of the constitution or laws of the united states that does not mean the best from is guilty that means the best for him as someone who may be prosecuted in guyana for the crime with which he is charged there that that determination whether or not he will be prosecuted in ghana is a determination that will be yours the government attempts to sidestep the standard here by citing language in cases that suggest that some evidence or any evidence of probable cause is sufficient however you have to make a finding of probable cause here and again this witness is simply unreliable the government tries to argue we have to make a determination of probable cause yes yes whether whether your client is being held as you point out in violation of the constitution while he is awaiting extradition yes your honor and the standard for that process of being held is whether or not there is probable cause to believe that he's the one that committed this crime and as i've argued there simply is not  legalities and i'd suggest your honor that probable cause is it is a it's a lot that's a that's that's a determination that is a legal finding and that that your honor  you and this court review by dyno bo status and we're not disputing that there was a beating here we're simply not disputing that what we're saying is that that these article flip flops make this a situation where probable cause is simply unreliable the government makes much of delay and seems to suggest to this court that my client indeed that is true and so so  at bottom judge you are honors that these flip flops are radical changes they are radical changes the fact of the matter is  that he on one hand will adopt the statement on direct and another hand he'll say he knew nothing about the death of that it's not that the government argument argues that he doesn't understand he doesn't understand the proceedings if he doesn't understand what's going on how can this court make a finding that there is probable cause to continue holding marcus busier am i urge this court to find that there is not probable cause and to deny the united states request that his incarceration remain if your honour's have no further questions i'm finished for the morning