well now go to the calendar and the st case is united states versus benjamin so i have two minutes of uninterrupted questioning failed to prove a sex trafficking conspiracy between mr benjamin and mr wallace there was insufficient evidence of the conspiracy the government has claimed number of factors which they can constitute a conspiracy none of which were sufficiently proven by the government certainly the government really only prove that both men may have each separately engaged in sexually trafficking and this is not what makes a conspiracy there was no joint venture here between the two men and explicitly witty or implicitly in fact the other individual mr wolf did not even recall discussing prostitution with my client and certainly the government has been proven meeting of minds and no green between the two know about they would ask you you know lebanon that any iota of the crime occurred in the southern district of new york or the only connection that the government attempted to make to the southern district of new york was that the defendant and victim   st met the defendant in queens and there was absolutely no evidence presented in any of the time that for the release of sex trafficking occurred in the th district there wasn't really only one sided to the to your point about whether the government fail to introduce sufficient evidence that benjamin walsh agreed to sexually traffic minors as i understand the record  and you also have two minors who testified that they engaged at prostitution at benjamin's home losses behest why is this evidence in your view insufficient or any rational journey to have found benjamin guilty will testified that he sat next to benjamin while benjamin showed him what to do because well she wanted to traffic that doesn't necessarily mean to two men traffic together or that they had an agreement to share in the trafficking they were if they were doing it and i read the record separately although walsh may have gone to benjamin to ask him for information about how to do that  the the testimony by the system too was the the only testimony that she had anything to do with benjamin was that there was a discussion at some point in initially she said that was crazy prostitution and benjamin wasn't involved later on she said it was a group discussion that included benjamin but there was no evidence as to what  min even said it if i recall the records were actually in that discussion and the fact that two people may be associated and separately handling the minor thought of benjamin us her boyfriend they discussed meeting in person and went to her residence to queens and met walsh and once in queen she began a special relationship with benjamin and live with benjamin for the next two or three months and during that time benjamin suggested that minor at the minor engage in prostitution why isn't this evidence efficient for a reasonable jury to find by  that benjamin recruited or enticed a minor while she resided in the southern district of new york to engage in prostitution and that venue is therefore proper for both the conviction to have anything to do grooming her entire thing or not it there was no evidence of that for that particular that that it seems to me is the reason why a jury might also conclude that she is a nothing in the record to suggest that mr welch believed he was picking her up because she was going to be sexually traffic there was nothing by the indicating that he picked her up and and said anything to her about well now hear from your adversary thank you very much you around  queens they went to walsh in order to make more money the conspiracy continued there walsh and benjamin waltz testified about sitting next to benjamin making ads for commercial sac with respect to the new benjamin communicated with victim one victim one testified while she was in the southern district of new york she thought that benjamin was her quote boyfriend she didn't travel through manhattan to queens d or to meet benjamin and days there after he enlisted her in prostitution for his southern district of new york is really more than enough for reasonable juror to find that mr benjamin already had in mind the possibility of recruiting her and therefore that this was just a st step that sufficient for venue purposes i'd also note that there was testimony that mr then victim was and discuss prostitution during these facebook messenger conversations and according to benjamin there were no acts of any prostitution during the space book messenger conversations and so it's a bit of a reach saying that there's venue in the southern district in this case that your  honor i think i would return again to the idea that a reasonable juror could find that benjamin already had that purpose in mind based on the context based on the d immediacy with which he was trafficking on arriving based on the fact that he had experience with back page based on the fact that walsh went to go get her to she got to clean it and i think that it doesn't need to i would also point to the court's recent decision in  enticing or soliciting by any means and again i would remind the court that the that you're here is very broad the sex trafficking that you could provide a reasonable basis for a jury to find that benjamin had in mind trafficking when he believes that argues that it was an abuse of discretion by the district court to admit testimony that benjamin had a reputation in the community as a swindler if there were are shit what's the standard do we review the era for harmlessness why is any error on the part of the district court harmless in this case with respect to benjamin really the idea that brief testimony referring to him as a swindler which is her opinion and goes to context with respect to why she did not want to go work for benjamin despite his repeated attempts to recruit  go work for benjamin directly and extra of this case we have here we case on the sex trafficking conspiracy we have the fact that the government elicited the evidence of the bad character and its case in chief before the defendant had interposed any defense of good character character itself was not an element of the crime here there was no curative instruction the character assassination not only of the sex trafficking but now also as a swindler based on the  witness saying that she heard it on the street not even that she knew it herself from her own experience and it was not cumulative any other evidence of character was the sole evidence of character in this case but it was cumulatively cumulatively unfair prejudicial when taken together with walsh's improperly admitted testimony that the defendant said they got us now which resulted in the denials over all of their trial thank you thank you both for your arguments the court will reserve decision