notes that you're appointed under the criminal justice act to represent mr campbell in court prescience your willingness to serve and here i would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal if i could i think your yellow light will go on then and you'll just need cease it very well my name is jeff larson i represent carl campbell in this action this a campbell was convicted of sex trafficking by force were coersion sex trafficking of a child interstate transportation for prostitution and obstructing sex traffic he's been foresman for those convictions he received three life sentences into twenty year sentences all to run concurrently he's here on appeal requesting relief from a judgment resulted from evidentiary rulings and rulings which deny mr campbell his right to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses i'll try to begin with a brief factual summary and then confine my argument to selected issues or revote relying on the brief for the remaining issues that i did not get time to address carl campbell and mindy alice were in a girlfriend boyfriend relationship from the summer of two thousand and ten until roughly december twenty first of two thousand and eleven wrote campbell a letter when he was in custody telling him that she has decided to give up the baby she was carrying from carl for adoption during that year and a half there was physical abuse of miss alice by mr campbell both were in and out of jail both had substance abuse problems there was prostitution by alice whether or not campbell was around on july twelfth of two thousand and eleven alice was stopped in suburban chicago for a headlight violation at that point she had twelve hundred dollars in cash on her person felony warrants for rush from south dakota and at that point claimed campbell was forcing her to prostitute or self and then continued that prostitution activity for weeks after campbell's arrested i'll try to first address the evidentiary issues of the trial dentistry rulings of the trial court and then discuss the confrontation clause issue but it times those two are intertwined because of the very nature the first issue i'd like to talk about are the photographs and the testimony about the assaults on alice where evidence was taken that predated any government hooking it up to any relationship at all to the prostitution activity to put it in perspective the government starts by giving us notice under floral for b that alysha is that the assaults on al aish were other act evidence at the hearing the trial court ruled that they were actually rest just die which seems to be almost the opposite of other acts that they were so in or inextricably intertwined that any assault on alice by campbell came in the unfortunate effect of that was it absolve the government of proving the key causal issue in this case which is whether the domestic abuse w to prostitution because it was advanced very that this year and a half relationship that the violence priest preceded the alleged prostitution activity and then went through it and was often triggered by jealousy and we tried to present evidence on that and were prohibited at some point photographs were admitted without any link to prostitution of a november twenty sixth two thousand and ten assault it is summer twenty eighth two thousand  along with hearsay testimony that was the result of domestic assault and a aug eighth of two thousand and eleven domestic assault where the hearsay of a witness that was never called by the government was allowed in to explain that now the government argues that they should be allowed to put in evidence of assaults without any link at all to prostitution to lead their case because they claim that rule six eleven basically allows a trial court some latitude which i agree in allowing the order of ordering of evidence but rule six eleven says that the truck court should exercise reasonable control over the mode in order and then the government cites the pocket case where they actually the trial court allowed the government to call a long force an officer on two different parts of the trial so that things made sense chronologically in the trial which is exactly the opposite of what the government did here they led with a theatrical of the pictures of the brutal assaults without linking anything to the prostitution and by the way none of the results were a reported to police as having anything to do with prostitution also so is that your position there was never a link up with that link up was too late to get both there was a never a link up to some mis allegation did finally testify at trial inconsistent with reports of the police that some of them were directly related one was supposed to related to money that was not turned over i believe how what was the numbers there how many did she can or testified to be related and i know that she did tie in some i know that there was some argument that for example i think the early two thousand and ten ones i think she alleged later on that the prostitution actually started after a series of them so i don't think those could be related all of the our the government did argue that that was part of a grooming process for something that had not yet happened you contest the rest just die ruling there to the evidence that a lot was allowed in relative to n k one of the one of the juvenile victims in this particular case ms mr campbell met her as she was making a prostitution call in a hotel unrelated to anything mr campbell was involved in and kay was allowed to say that campbell explained the ropes of prostitution but we were not that not allowed that was not considered to be rest just thai that she was there on a cross situation call nor were we allowed to cross examine her about that fact even though she's claimed that the process was explained to her by mr campbell the four cell case from the circuit says it rest just by means that it has to be so blended or connected and compare how blended in connected that is that she's there on a prostitution call when he meets her versus the mindy alice evidence that was allowed in that her mother was abused twenty or thirty years before that she was in a prior abusive relationship with a lover that was never tied in to have any connection whatsoever of relevance other than the government claim that this shows that she was part of this abuse cycle yet one of the arguments was is that's why she didn't police yet she testified when her mother didn't report it to police the assaults escalated so it actually is counter intuitive to what the government says the reason how would your climb be prejudiced even if you're right that it's not race just die as your client prejudiced by the fact that the victim's mother was abused by some guy you know twenty years ago the theory of the government's case appeared to me to be start off with every possible sympathetic factor you can of an unsympathetic victim before you subject her to cross examination and the fact of the matter is is she continued prostitution after this was done you can see in the government's exhibit thirty that she's openly talking about prostitution in letters when he is in the county jail it came in right you were a letters came in and yes they will argue to the jury that she continued in so right after a day and a half of sympathetic things was put on before we ever had a chance to do those things and that's my argument is that it's the combination of the errors here it's not one particular error that makes it prejudicial but the combination of not letting in the bad stuff on the government's witnesses letting in all the bad stuff relative to the defended and doing it in order where they were not even required to show any relevance of the evidence that they led with and were supposedly going to tie up later in the case the confrontation issues with elmo had to do with cross examination of the fact that it was mr clinton that it actually shown her the things that she had said it was clinton  me about this and we were we had that kept out under a four zero two four twelve ruling yet for twelve has an exception when it has to do with the defendant's constitutional right and certainly confronting the witness against by cross examination is a part of that similar to the four hundred four b evidence on jr is worthy of comment jr was a young person substantially less younger than mindy ellis the government went to great lengths to prove that she had special needs yourself and was different than the other victims in this particular case and the assault that was allowed was the scratching of her leg with the key yet the entire j r evidence was allowed in his four hundred four b and the point is that there should be again case cited by the government that there should be repeated that there's repeat were repeated occurrences of similar acts the type in degree of the abuse was totally different the fact that one was in a lover relationship and one was in a totally different relationship the youth versus the age of the other person there were so many things that separated jr situation from that of miss alice yeah all of those things were ignored and jr's testimony was allowed to come in the turner case says that for all for be evidence should not be used to show a propensity in the factors that talks about our relevance to material issues and if you read jr's testimony in whole i think it is legitimate to say really what does this have to do with the other people similar and close in time i've already pointed out a lot of the factual data distinctions between the two and the fact that the prejudicial value doesn't substantially away the probative effect there was an obvious and you can tell by the ordering of the direct examination there is an obvious attempt to portray j r as somebody of somewhat limited intelligence that was taken advantage of that was the abuse was supposed to be cutting or scratching with the key yet when you see say what does that really have to do she's an adult what does that have to do with what mr campbell was allegedly doing with minors and more importantly what does that have to do with somebody something  campbell right to a fair trial and certainly denied him a right to confront and cross examine the adverse witnesses thank you very well thank you mr larson mr connor we'll hear from you or i'm kevin collar with the district of south dakota representing the government this is a case in which the evidence at trial was overwhelming and although there are many issues that are briefed in this appeal they all in my view tend to fall into the category of at very worst harmless there were i believe eighteen different witnesses who testified the convictions could stand on the basis of three witnesses alone and that's the three victims who each testified in this case mr campbell also testified in this case and his testimony he he fully admitted that his e mail was associated with back page prostitution ads that he posted these ads that his primary victim mindy alysha went on quote unquote dates and he admitted that he beat her up a number of times he admitted that he took her out of town he admitted that he knew both of the juvenile victims he admitted he had sex with one of the juvenile victims when he was in his mid thirty's and she was sixteen with the other one a admitted that he drove her to a truck stop with another guy another indicted and now convicted a federal defendant and that she climbed out of the truck stopped and was gone for a while and then came back and handed over some money those are the defendant's own admissions in this case the factual recitation given by defense counsel here was the defense before the jury and the jury rejected that on each count beyond a reasonable doubt questions are raised about whether these assaults were linked up to prostitution eighteen u s c fifteen ninety one does not require that for each prostitution act there's an accompany assault the evidence in this case is that the first prostitution act engaged in by the primary victim miss alice occurred about a week after the first documented beating that was one in which she was man that was beating her regularly it was your position that all of these were linked by her general testimony about the assaultive behavior yes as the standard is whether someone in in her position given her station in  life given the surrounding circumstances would believe that you would incur some kind of serious harm had she not engaged in these sex acts and that's the coersion standard fifteen ninety one in this climate that she was in where she was being beaten for all sorts of things were some of these attributable to jealousy between two people maybe they were but she knew the consequences of saying no to carl campbell which was she was going to get beat she was going to get hot chili thrown in her face you're going to get sliced across the nose with a knife she's going to get her eye socket broken eccentrics after there were specific assaults that dealt with the prostitution business exactly things like a time when he beat her in the shower while holding money that he found that she had hidden in her code the time that she missed a phone call from a prostitution customer while at a drive thru at a wendy's drive in drive through restaurant he threw a thing a hot chili interface  there were assaults that were no question about there was another one in a hotel where she went to grab some money and run out the door and he in that was prostitution money and he beat her for that no question that the violence and the prostitution were part and parcel linked up in this case simply out of in the interests of avoiding a couple of appellate issues and to  make the proof more understandable by the jury what was the reasoning for the order of proof with respect to these photographs in the motel receipts why don't w until the connection is shown or there's some evidence of the of the connection and then all for the simple reason was the order that we had witnesses available when a number of three officers put in the photographs and so they were there on that first day of trial and we put in the photographs through those officers they laid the foundation for when they took those photographs and then we then put the victim victim on who describe not only the photographs but also the assault that was i think in the in the record there's a question by my trial co counsel raised by the court about that issue and  i think his response probably too flippant was because i just feel like putting him in this order and in that you know that that was a trial decision based upon  how we order our witnesses but it's not in the records that statement in the record i think so there's a there is a question by the court about when this objection was raised with respect to the ordering of the  of the evidence and by the way the court did sustain part of that objection and had the case agent come on later in the case somehow not related to the offense because we notice them up in our forum for being noticed the forum for being noticed notices them up as racist yes di but in the case that the court finds that there for a for be out of an abundance of caution we notice i'm up here pretrial in our forum for being noticed that's my practice if i think there's a close call if i think there's not a close call but there are other crimes that i believe  being so that's what happened here there was no concession on the part of the government in that notice that these were not part and parcel of indicted crimes  with respect to these rule for twelve issues regarding the minor victims here i believe that those arguments are foreclosed by this court's directly on point point  elbert that was precisely the same question precisely the same statute precisely same issue that was decided on all four corners by this court not only addressing the relevant questions but also the constitutional issues so i believe it would have been error for the district court to have decided otherwise based upon that  decision as i say there are a number of issues briefed up here i have seven minutes left on my clock i'm happy to answer any more questions our view in this case is again that the evidence was overwhelming proved and corroborated in numerous ways supported the convictions of the sentences all right well the issues have been fully briefed and there's no requirement as you use every second on the clock so if you are finished will will consider it submitted to you have any when counsel a trial was asked a similar question to what judge sheppard asked relative to why the ordering was the exact answer was just want to your honor the exchange read the fact of the matter was is i don't recall and i defer to mr collyer if you think there's a citation in there but i don't recall that ever being said anything in trial about we have a problem with the ordering of the witnesses it was kept saying we want to do it this way this is our strategy and we don't want to be told how to present our case i don't recall anything about the ordering of the witnesses and i'll defer to the record on that the the argument is that these were relevant the early assaults in particular were relevant because of all surrounding circumstances yet if you compare that to the backdrop of why then were we not allowed to cross examine detective giuliani about the statements to him immediately upon her upon her being stopped that the assaults were because of jealousy of her interactions with a nother imp with an employee at the motel which they were staying it would seem odd that the prior assaults the victimization of her mother the victimization her at the other hand is something are part of the surrounding circumstances yet the fact that she states on the same day that this is supposedly happening that she was assaulted because of jealousy of somebody else but that was not the part of the surrounding circumstances did the judge keep it out as hearsay the judge kept the dollars hearsay would you cross examine or and confront her with her prior statement now you say for example miss witness didn't tell officer so and so you i honestly don't recall if i did or not that would have been open to you right but i think it was the inconsistent statement relative to what she had said so i think it should have been allowed in but my point is wouldn't it have been allowed in through the witness herself if you asked her about it and then there she denied it you could get into whether you had further recourse i see what you're saying if you didn't ask her then why was it there to keep out the officer statement as hearsay particularly when you had the witness avail because what exception would be