the jury verdict in the lower court's decision under the facts of this case in essence this court will now be turning a specific intent crime which eighteen u s c twenty four twenty two years  strict liability offense we know this because we've seen through this court's guidance in the meat case that meeks states that the intent required in this case the mens rea it must be focused on the subjective beliefs of the defendant and what makes states though is on one hand no longer and never will it have to be a minor doesn't have to be on the other side of the conversation but meat also says that the defendant or the accused must believe they are inducing a minor and that that belief has to be an actual knowledge and an actual belief and the guilt only arises in what are legal and lawful conversations on the internet all those sexually charged when the guilt comes from the defendant's knowledge of what he intends to do i e be with a minor and in this case the facts do not support that and the court err in its during instruction which i would like to address first because in the jury instruction there is no addressing of the subject of knowledge that is needed from on behalf of the accused the court does give the general knowledge instruction we provided a further knowledge instruction which said that it is required by the government to prove the defendant believed he was chatting with a minor now this is an area that has not been addressed throughout any of the circuits regarding these cases regarding the internet luring the issue that has primarily been addressed as does is the issue of there is no need for it to be an actual miner on the other side correct me if i'm wrong the government must prove the following five essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt third that the defendant believe that such individuals less than eighteen years of age or why is that the factor that i because it does not as we analogize in our brief to the pal the stay in which regards tax evasion or tax fraud where this court has said that a jury cannot substitute their objective beliefs for the subject the accused and because i don't follow what you just said it's a whole bunch of language here the jury has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant believed is not talking about the subjective state of mind of the defendant that the individual is less than eighty no your honor it does not and i fight could and i hope that i am able to provide the my argument properly because it is somewhat confusing your honor it states the defendant believe that such an individual was less than eighteen years of age the jury is not given any guidance that they need to look at the subjective belief of the defendant and what the jury can do as that it's it's the respondent has provided it and what is responded it's one thirty five i'm sorry respond it's one thirty four in their export of record the instruction i proposed the eleventh circuit in their pattern jury instructions number eighty has created a special jury instruction for offenses under eighteen u s c twenty four twenty two b and one part of that and i broke it down it's the beginning instruction that judge trot was referring to and the instruction i provided when i further it states it is not necessary for the government to prove that the individual was in fact less than eighteen years of age but it is in meek it is very very important and critical to focus on the subjective belief of the defendant and because of that heightened actual knowledge i believe it was incumbent upon the district record it's instruction number fourteen page twenty four  maybe a slight difference but there is definitely a distinction here based on the facts of this case the government's position is that once in the chat it was said i'm fourteen the crime was committed now what we have here is it creates strict liability because under the facts of this case my client was chatting in an adult chat room and in that adult chat room and the evidence was clear you must certify that you're eighteen years of age or older to even be in that chapter and that chat room is an adult chat room for romance so it's sexually charged in this nature and so from my from our perspective even that chat room and all the witnesses the detective on the case you have to be i case agent and the expert witness for me oh well i'm sorry from ya'll who testified that because this chat room is designed for adults and are protections to ensure that adults only are within the chat room then it would be reasonable for a person to believe they are chatting with an adult regardless of the content the story obviously rejected that based on the content of the conversation in the photograph you are and that was your defense of the jury rejected your honor they did and i believe that the jury rejected it because if they were instructed to look at what the defendant subjectively believed and did not put their own objective beliefs to what he should have known because i think it's important to look at the chasse themselves and the chance to themselves never does i mention age regarding mariska never your own i would not disagree with your approach but we need to look also at the other two pictures that were submitted cowboy life it doesn't look much older kakuro i would respectfully disagree but it's very important i think when you look at the pictures to note that each of the pictures depicts a different age if you look at it closely of this person and i think significant to know is that i you've been the very last chap actually asks morris to send me a picture of how you look now exactly and so what we have here your honor in this adult chat room for adults only are photographs that are not of the same person and the same age but shows a broad range of ages it significant for the court to note in this is that the jury actually asked a question during the deliberations over three days of deliberations on two and a half days of testimony and the jury asked the question what is the age of quote unquote mariska in the dress that evidence was not presented during the trial and so the jury was not given the age but the jury was in a quandary because all these different photos were being sent showing different ages and then we have i have asking at the end what you look like exactly today and it shows there in the subjective beliefs in the mind of i that as it's already stated it's reasonable to believe that he was chatting with a minor i mean i'm sorry reasonable to believe that he was chatting with an adult and not with a minor because of the nature and content of the chat room itself i didn't a fairy first conversation and what you described as they had all chat room within ninety seconds of that conversation starting after she said anyone want to talk chat with somebody or girl in reno and eat and he would ask she said i responded that she would turn fifteen in december and your client said cool not true that's correct so within ninety seconds of the whole conversation starting as an adult chat room and suddenly he knew that be eighteen to enter and it's nice but everybody knows it's baloney because part of the problem is you get kids entering these chat rooms and they falsify who they are that's one of the big problems out there now that the society is trying to stop the chat rooms are loaded with little kids and that's why they're there we're monitoring they're being monitored by the law enforcement agencies your honor that's correct but that's also why he says do you like older guys about three sentences later your honor that's correct but it's important because the government is in essence casting a wide net as this court astutely pointed out that not only are there children entering these chat rooms there's testimony that there's men posing as women there's women posing as men there's the five hundred pound man  know because we must look at the subjective and the entirety of the conversations from that point forward never again was any age mentioned the chasse themselves from a risk are adult stated that when she's in this chat room and putting out this name that many people say some people say up to young i don't want to talk to other people say continue with the discussions and there's no and there sexual content but there's going to some people believed that he was nineteen or twenty i believe the jury could have found that he had a belief that he was chatting with an adult as he stated after he was arrested i do that to the jury i guess they just in your honor that this is the problem with these cases just try it mentioned there's a heightened awareness of these cases in our community now because of the quote unquote predators on the internet but we have to look at the entirety of the facts in order for the jury to be able to make that to trying to trying to figure out what happened to your client that was unfair here did the district court do something wrong in you said that that the instruction should have been clearer it is not necessary but it is necessary that you know a little different emphasis but ultimately the question for the jury was whether or not there was a reasonable doubt that he  objective findings for what was the subjective evidence as presented through the chaps and testimony are you going to saying martin trackman i would like to your honor ok your honor further the evidence is clearly supports and we understand the burden after the noble review that this court must find an entrapment whether or not a jury reasonable jury would have found in favor of the defendant or no reason jury would have found that  government failed and a reasonable jury and a case not so charged with all of the issues the judge truck parked about would have found that i was entrapped because one the government failed to show he was not created spilled the show he was the other case that the there was no other case but if you're referring to the other detective again we write the other yeah yeah and again that's government contact and so we have to look at the state of mind prior to the government contact with him and there has there is no showing that either you did anything other than shack in an adult chat room and as jacobson states evidence that merely indicates a generic inclination to act within a broad range not all of which is criminal is  little probative value in the stablish in predisposition many character witnesses testified on behalf of vibe that he had no inclination to like young children that he was truthful also his post arrest statements which are relevant  towards the predisposition once she was eighteen she he constantly stated this was an eighteen year old he never stated you've caught me i'm you're right i was going to be with a minor which is the type of cases we often see in the meat case and criswell out of the sixth circuit and thomas out of the tenth circuit and then the other thing that the court must view and look at is the inducement by the government to have i show up there were  internet chats eight of these internet chats were initiated by the government but long runs all of the conversation from the government are very serious talk about or bringing up the subject like they did not bring up the car the discussion of sex but the discussion from the government was sexual in nature the government agent admitted that she approached form for lazio admitted to her sexual likes and dislikes after being asked by or crime but more but she went on to talk about that and more importantly though your honor is that the government agent enter and goostman right it be known through their statements such as i'm tired of you blowing me off if you don't talk to me i don't need things of this nature in my life that it shows that they were inducing like in palm and there is inducement by commission and i you know there's inducement by inference if you don't meet with me if we don't talk about these things then i don't want to been properly instructed that it's the subjective beliefs of i then the jury would be able to take out these objective statements and look at what i have said and it's important that i have never said things such as meet did that i can't wait to be with a ten year old boy or as in criswell i is your age true because i want to be with a younger person none of that was ever said nothing was the specific any of the chat and when you look at the totality of all the facts and circumstances that the evidence is clear that he was not because he never said i can't things of that nature ok great job at trial combing the evidence to find any inconsistency sing the government's presentation on appeal identifying any discrepancies and have in the evidence presented testimony government presentation most require a government perfect presentation requires beyond a reasonable doubt twelve jurors agreed on this case that the evidence established all the requisite elements beyond a reasonable doubt in terms of the knowledge requirement in each case has been brought up and in meeks the standard set was could a jury reasonably infer that the defendant knowingly sought sexual activity one well the element that was presented it was element two in the judge's instructions on the offense was that the defendant not only intended to persuade or induce knowingly persuaded induced the specific the defendant had to knowingly intend to do something and know that the individual he was communicating with was under the age of eighteen aside from the all so just the statement that you don't drive doesn't mean you're necessarily a minor but when you couple that with all the statements made about not driving i have to sneak out my parents will be home soon i can talk on the phone now my sister may catch me i have chores to do i have homework i gotta go with my parents to sacramento to visit my my uncle i'll be fifteen in december and then within a matter of minutes sending a picture of that she's a cow girl that looks like a cow girly girl that's under the age of eighteen then the next photo that said is a girl standing next to a pool that doesn't in any way look like anyone who's even close to the age of eighteen there was some debate about the third photo sent again not a perfect case is that the photo you want to send to show that this was a minor that maybe not why did you send it well we didn't have any other photos at that show family members of our undercover detective when she was fourteen supplemental an excerpt of record trial testimony one thousand supplemental excerpt of record indicates the first two photos were taken when the undercover michelle ober was fourteen the third one was taken when she was in terms of the entrapment argument that's before you leave that one about that he started out a conversation or the chat started out in an adult chat room and therefore he didn't think he was and i shall chat room there for the gay should be reversed what's wrong with that are you well one problem with the argument is evidence was presented instead of just relying on the jurors common knowledge of the ways of the world maybe this isn't clear but anyone want to chat with a girl in reno and then within several minutes your advice for the individual sharing with marissa's advice to be fifteen in the summer and then within two to three minutes after that gets a target of the government in fact the reason he was identified maybe given a little closer look was the text of herrera a year earlier playing a role of a girl named amanda had chatted with an he had saved to detective hayden there was an indication that he was the same individual and he's doing the same thing which is after being notified that the individual i believe in the first case it was either fourteen or fifteen years old that wasn't in the transcript of the chat of the instant message communication it was in the chat room initially where detective where's that anyone want to chat with you know fourteen or fifteen year old in reno and in the phone it did bring out that no evidence that this individual was a pedophile really no evidence that this individual omar you was a predator but the that's not an element of the offense meaning is not an element of offense proving that he was a pedophile was an element of the that's and in this case it was clear that this was an individual who was very very few responses only got a response he checked it regardless of who it was with at one point on october thirty first of two thousand and three it was with an individual claim she was fifteen when she said responded no pervert i'm only fifteen his response was so so you like the decks it was clear in the back perhaps he wasn't targeting individuals who were minors but it's true that the government has to show that predisposition occurred prior to government contact but the evidence is not limited to prior to government contact it's really prior to or