conspiracy to commit murder for hire and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute contain prior to trust our government filed a motion in limine to admit other acceptance which is granted by the honorable judge and he appears to it after trial right at the end of trial mr recorder was convicted of both counts and subsequently sentenced to one hundred and twenty months on count one thousand three hundred month two those would be served concurrently but consecutive to the mr good job i would encourage you to sort of just get right to your argument you can assume we know all these basics about the not jailhouse informants are both looking for early release in exchange for their testimony they admitted to booking to contain knowledge from wrong doing to get out of jail quicker didn't didn't mr dallas quest say that i his intention was to quote bury the bitch in the backyard right now then he said that your client quite a jury could conclude that your client knew that is intention was to kill going i don't know that there is necessarily correct because i think that at the end of the day there was nothing done in furtherance of that i think that you know if we're just talking about intention for the moment why wouldn't that show an intention to kill this one i would say that my client never showed any intention to act in that way from his perspective bad he was doing was confronting the telephone or he was providing or helping to provide an address of mr goings so someone who said that they basically want to kill so that's kind of the way conspiracy works you know you have an agreement to you know it's a common plan and it would seem like he's acting pursuant to it knowing what dallas when i was in tension i mean i'm struggling to see how a jury could not reach that conclusion doing this they must have been doing that when there's no evidence that my client knew what was in that package or actively took part in rebounding that  clarify in reply how does this interpretation testimony of this jailbird marking turn into proof beyond a reasonable doubt where is there agreement in this group in this case and really how can  interpretations so freely without objection without proof of someone who wants to hire a killer so i have time for three main points the government has failed to prove conspiracy either for murder for hire or for drugs that too there's no promise to pay for a murder there's no money exchanged there's no consideration and this translates into there is no contest intent at all there's no agreements among court carol and separating lake michigan and lake here on two of the greatest lakes in the world maybe lake superior is the best but i'm from muskegon and i've had many contemplations of life on on the beaches of lake michigan these dollars in five years as a project or you've got to be good he's a liar a ripoff virus he's a thief an identity stealer and an identity creator and that's why it's so significant he creates false identity marking creates false reality and something occurred to me that he said when they were talkin when mark was wired he was trying to get angel to supposedly talk about this murder plot and he wanted to get talk on recording sense it doesn't make sense and that's the government's theory your honour's it doesn't make sense they did a great job at trial i was in there by the way and portraying you know the portrait they painted here but they left some blurry mental illness no record she was pretty straight in there uncontroverted testimony and she did you know there was supposedly this thing where she set up this robbery for drugs and money and then glenn got killed glenn the friend a drug of leon there's no proof of that whatsoever that was another false reality created this fried stor who knew exactly what he what tyra said leon and her are good friends very posset so the government's theory for murder is just not make it there's no ok i mean can mr couldn't you for watching captious in terms of which element you think they failed to prove and was st of all they failed to prove even that there was a scheme the murder for she gets off the grid you can't find tire that's preposterous here marking calls from a cell phone in prison and finds her address in two minutes we ends well but i mean the jury was enti believe king if they so chose is not correct i think so but that's where we get with the issue of whether there's sufficient evidence because the jury your honor jury lost its way in this case yes they could have plead marking if you take  transcript marking it's giving his impressions of this of that so he knows what he's doing and that's why they want to know when you get to conspiracy the government could charge my client within the individual case there was no possession so they couldn't charge him with murder for her there was no proof of that so when they do they come up with this conspiracy theory and not to mention this this is a the prior acts in this case your honour's i mean this is a cas issue now that you're right it is your honor and that goes to a number of things that goes not only to the way that the evidence but surely goes the fact that there was so prejudicial to my client that article to allow this rosario conference between him and  so they charge conspiracy they love this group of people but there's no there's insufficient proof of a connection there so again here we have king creating a false impression and when it comes to rerouting this this package which you know the united states postal service does not to reroute him couldn't be done and then came on it's fifteen thousand dollars to reroute it just doesn't make up any sense of the circumstantial evidence claim of the government there's just not enough there and that's how the jury loses what they did a great job of presentation marking came up with well this is what i think he said this is what i think was set know how can that be to hire someone for murder bernhardt you need someone who is higher there is no proof none that anyone had a promise to pay money that was what was in the indictment as consideration there's no evidence none that anyone had a promise to pay eduardo money for murdering someone is just insufficient proof of the crimes in this case and my brief deals with it very extensively i think in conclusion  my initial presentation is if you take a look at it this complicated factual prout that comes from marking marking did this well he designed it well and that's why he made one  that there was some payment going to be made for them or i mean when you get to that i just flagging that as something that we'd like to hear but i wouldn't discuss payment early  the credit card fraud scheme that happened before because the courts relate with that but one quarter over learned that mark was adept at cell phone use and getting people's identity he asked  him the information was correct he would be paid the last good asking to reroute a package of spy ware package that he was going to use to take out  both take the drugs and the money what happened unfortunately was the victim would kill and they believe the tire going to the money and the drugs quote unquote went off the grid which is why they couldn't find actually king talked to who we thought would victor from california if we look at the evidence don't actually own the house where the home invasion robbery occurred last good was texting song once he got the address from king with the address on and the corresponding text happy birthday even though it wasn't leon's birthday leon picture was in what you want to describe it was and what there was some suggestion at one point that there was going to be twenty thousand dollars paid as i recall was that money so that money was going to come from we understand was that the trial the jury heard that and they chose to believe him and there were other things blasted did which corresponded with things that my glasses actually pointed out  understand how that how is that related to the to cocaine or whatever it seems like it's in prison it's a different situation is it just to show a general ready you know mr rankin if i may how is proof of intent here different from a forbidden inference about to infer that you know once a drug dealer always a drug dealer he sold drugs back then therefore he probably did it here too right i mean but you can't but there are so propensity a propensity to commit a certain crime is not a legitimate basis to admit evidence that the defendant committed the same crime right and that accurate ok but you are allowed to show to admit evidence like this to show that the defendant has the requisite intent in this particular case  and that's what you're saying the government did here right knowledge but i mean how is it different how are you not proving intent by propensity i guess how is this not a propensity and i think it could show their knowledge by the fact that they were involved in other and it wasn't cocaine and it was in prison right with synthetic a to it was a totally different drug and different situation but it does show because at the very end it says that that core that sentencing guidelines to x one point one should apply and i guess that thank you your honor just briefly i want to touch on the issue of the prior bad acts in the propensity of this information about selling the case in  money from anyone there's no proof of intent that goes along with that and there is no the government has not shown that at wired l and victor ever got into a contract or there's any consideration your honor so you have a great thank you both for your service in this case and contribution to our work in the justice system so thank you both and the case of the summit of the clerk may call the next case