are an inmate's consent whether that consent was induced by fear and the existence of a quid pro quo and my argument is twofold that the the evidence was not sufficient to prove a number of the facts asserted by the government in support of its theory of guilt and moreover even even if the evidence had proven those facts what the government described does not legally qualify as  there's always an element of coercion in exception right yes i agree with that and so when this prison guard seizes the green dock numbers  from the prisoners and says you've been stealing now i'm going to steal they don't object to it they don't report him  they know he can report them they've been involved in an illegal skiing and and it may be coerced consent but then they're consenting to that aren't they i disagree and i would make a distinction between compliance and consent which would apply to robberies and extortion and all kinds of cases a person who's robbed like an administrative remedy there was no evidence of an administrative remedy that existed outside of this disciplinary review process that agent tripped testified there was evidence that i think was it the prisoner named oliver testified that he didn't report it correct and he testified that he didn't report it out of his self interest he testified that he would have incriminated himself not because he had an agreement with the officers who took those green maybe even all of them in the office or goes his merry way the drug dealer keeps coming back and doing and sometimes the officers and approaches him and ask for that money and sometimes he does the drug dealer doesn't complain he wouldn't do that because he would incriminate himself but but the officer keeps taking the extortion it would depend on a couple of things if he just patted that drug dealer down took the money and then said i'm going to keep this that would not be extortion any more than it would be in the context of a legal search we wouldn't say that well he says let's not change the facts ok the facts were that the officer said to the dealer i saw what you just  context of a police officer there's a difference between obtaining compliance and getting consent when a police officer who has a right to seize contraband or to search a person gets compliance from that person that's different than giving that's resting you know he's just taking his money putting in a spa kit and walking along and he keeps coming back and doing that you know from time to time consent for purposes of extortion is not free and voluntary kind of consent right it's a grudging coerced consent right right and and this drug dealer knows that does and he the drug dealer doesn't get arrested and isn't that explosion i still stand by what i said there's a difference between getting compliance in the context of a police officer every officer theft and fortunately it's not unheard of for police officers to steal from individuals but and i polish as i've overlooked the case i couldn't find any cases where a run of the noel theft was was held to be extortion does that mean your client committed extortion no because the evidence did not show that my client made any kind of demand the evidence didn't describe it all the searches that he conducted and i thought that he had admitted that he would tell the inmate he said at an early point you've been stealing now i'm going to steal right and there was even an inmate suggested to him that he should keep that money and then he continued to do we don't know that he ever stole from the same in they twice and that would be the kind of course of conduct that may establish an agreement further his statements you know the the predicate of that is he already has the green dot number he searched and he has it in his hand and he's declaring this is what i'm going to do i'm going to load and keeping it it wasn't a statement to try and get them to give it to him they didn't have a choice they have very diminished fourth amendment rights if any to resist him if he wants to search them as a drug dealer has very little right restraint right right and if an officer i would agree would be it's it's a closer case of extortion if the drug dealer gives him something you know using his coercive you know what if you what about you know the mom and pop shop owner and the classic extortion case right right that the guy comes in and he demands the money and he opens up the register him self and he takes it out i would say that's not extortion that's robbery if he's black i'm just going to take this whether you he takes it out you know and they know if they report him and know he's going to burn down their place i mean why would that not be extortion he would be using the fear to get away with it not to get them to consent to give him the money they didn't have a choice they choice was maybe whether or not to prosecute but that's he's relying on that fear to get away with the crime but not with to induce their consent conduct one cannot consent retroactively to my knowledge in any other crime with a victim or it could see their consensual taking were nonconsensual taking at the time and whatever happens later whether the person turns them good morning which housekeeper for the united states i apologize thank you so i think the court pointed out that it is the circumstances of the consent leading to corrigan that is the driving factor in deciding whether or not a case is extortion or not and the circumstances of this case i believe the government believes demonstrates the coercive effect of what mr harris did so i was a journalism major in college and one of the basic tenets of journalism is that in order to tell a complete story you have to tell the who the what the where the when the why and the how and knowing the who the what the when the where the why and the how this case tells the complete story here and shows why the jury's verdict should be upheld and i don't think that mr dodson's interpretation of the case fully comprehend the complete circumstances that the telling of the who the what the when the where the high how would do so the who is there to who is in this case there's mr harris and there's the prison in mates and so what we don't have is a regular citizen in either side we have a prison guard and an inmate and mr harris was not just any prison guard he was a cert team member and as a  certain member he had a very powerful position that allowed him to shake down the prisoners and he knew that and he said as much in a statement i stop somebody walk and i shake him down he also had a reputation with the prisoners the reputation that inspired fear the asshole out there he said the inmates on the other hand are citizens but citizens whose rights have been severely this was not an encounter between two ordinary consenting adults hence the coercive effect harris held all the power and he made sure the inmates knew what you need he told them the wear ins case is important to the prison setting it's even more course of the new example that judge pryor gave of it on the street encounter with a police officer it was a setting where the prison guard or in this case the certain member willed all the power a setting in which harsh discipline discipline was imposed for violations like possession of contraband and that harsh discipline was known to every prisoner the what and the how hugely important here the taking of the green that card numbers for himself that was the what and he took them not to report them and he made sure the knew that his own statements made it clear i'm going to take your money from you i'm a load your money the words i'm going keep that money for me i'm not turning this into i'm a steal from you i'm to robin hood you and then the when the the literal answer was twenty thirteen but the most important when here is whenever he wanted because he had the power and he had the opportunity and every  knew that and then the lie well for the money as somebody crimes are often done but also if you read a statement because he enjoyed the power and he enjoyed utilizing his power so when you look at the who the what the when the where and why and the how becomes clear that the inmates understood that when harris took those numbers from them it wasn't to report them as contraband and that he intended to keep the might for himself i'm fixing to take your money from you load your money and that's the jury's verdict shows because the jury understood and inferred from this conduct what was happening his statements implied or showed that if they pushed back they would either face reprisal from paris himself or they would have to report their own legal activity and so they failed to act and there is implicit evidence are there was it was a reasonable inference for the jury to infer from the evidence that there were no reports made so whether acting from fear of violence or fear of exposure consented but that consent was coerced and however forced they were they they transferred the numbers from themselves to harris and evidence shows that all of the elements of coercion w journalist i want to emphasize the lack of evidence to prove these assertions because we don't even have to consider whether it would qualify six duration if the evidence doesn't allow the jury to reasonably  because that they didn't report him because if they had there would have been some disciplinary action right possibly what we know is that construction was rampant throughout that prison and not you know and even if we're not talking about reporting there was no evidence that he didn't put punish them in some way put them in the ministry of segregation or even informally so and to the extent that that baird on the inmates consent there was no  evidence again that he searched the same and they twice so even if he did it over a course of time we do not know that there was this course of conduct that went to a specific inmate and i think that's the fundamental problem with the government's case here is that there was forego and we don't have anything specific here even within we don't know if we're talking about some grievance process that we don't know about because it wasn't in evidence or putting someone in the hole or filing a disciplinary extent that they didn't the government conceded in trial and through a number of their witnesses that the reason for that had everything to do with self interest and not with having some kind of an agreement with this court in i think atkinson involving a conspiracy that you can't prove an agreement for purposes of a conspiracy by proving that the alleged conspirators acted in a way that would have furthered a conspiracy if there had been one and i think that principle applies here to both parties could have acted in their same interest and it would not be reasonable to infer an agreement because it's the obvious explanation for that is to avoid self incrimination and if there are no other questions i'll just ask this court to vacate mr harris's conviction and reverse the district court's denial of the rule twenty nine motion thank you mr dotson we have your case and will go to the last case this versus story versus barry hill good morning mr martin good morning