here and you had four or five defendants all feeling their convictions of the one twenty four c and they were all of held except for one individual who initially in the first bank robbery the court held there was sufficient evidence that she in fact had taken certain acts at the scene of the crime states actually supplied the guns and all the cars and my client had nothing to do with it i think wayne that i think with that any jury finally in the government's brief it makes a lot of the fact that scott actually recanted twice initially when he came when when he came forward he didn't entirely say that just was innocent he still said my client had a small role in some of the bank robberies and he's still been a case my client's argument that he actually nothing to do with the guns in the bank robbery and also says that my client nothing to do with the fourth bank robbery jury would have convicted old joseph on the rock the second issue is whether or not the dish report judge judge white abuses discretion in admitting a statement does have made he was then girlfriend finish the day in which she instructed day to lie to the police to cover up the fact that he had used her car in a number of robberies gave us the third issue is whether or not the district judge abus almost certainly did not place any great relian a go to the guns the the defense wants us to just look at one of the witnesses they see and want to look at one of the statements that bates made a trial the guns are in the camry and stop there but including a tech nine there was evidence that the technology was used in the alliance robbery there is evidence that the tech nine and another semiautomatic gun were given to scott and bates for use in the alliance robbery there's no evidence that use one robbery to show ammo and then he participated but that there might be there's a kind of a different standard for aiding and abetting and so would you address that point you're making the nelson case there are a number of nine twenty four s robberies and with regard to the first robbery the evidence was that she was at the scene of the cry and and she helped instruct some of the victims to get down she said get down while one of the other robbers held a gun now this court  her conviction just based on that evidence planning and her aiding in an instruction to some of the victims in the bank that's far less evidence than we have in this case there's evidence here they're all joseph provided guns he provided cars he drove the robbers to the bank  he dropped them off in front of the bank literally minutes before the robbery knowing that there was going to be a robbery but see all of that whole statement says you have there's going to be a ram ring and and he's into it need deep but it doesn't really address the gun  but here look at the lines robbery there's a very unique signature to the robbery joseph picks up the other two he drives into tunisia days apartment complex they sleep in the carport joseph gets the acura from his girlfriend they drive over to dealing on workplace she's joseph de facto mother in law she's known her for twelve or thirteen years and that's where the cars parked and the cars registered in his name he picks up the car back or any ac used in the wrong the evidence is that the guns were in the act were in the camera excuse me right for the wrong for instance bates testified that literally minutes before the robbery scoff and dates put on their disguises they took their guns and they ran into the bank there that very now proposition but if you look at the statute itself we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant directly facilitated or encouraged  i'm not quite sure how participation in one robbery even if it was a signature robbery and then you had similarities in the second robbery would really make that but one thing of course and look at the fact that just the provided the cars for the that the guns are in the camry with all three of the robbers and joseph was driving the camry so i think right on that fact you have facilitation and i would point the court to the first circus case invent and  was bank robbery case and then if the evidence was that the robbers drove to the bank one of the robbers drove the car there were guns in the car the other robbers robbed the bank and that was sufficient evidence for the first circuit to affirm the conviction it's crucial for the court to see that there's no evidence that the other robbers had any vehicles there's no evidence that they had any guns power and bates going to rob the bank on a bicycle you know they had to get to the bank and how are they going to do it they need the gun would be the evidence of encourage well  did dispute his participation and so i think that the encouragement issue is like intent or knowledge and so i think that the court and in fact this jury should actually look at that sort of pathology of evidence  that he had received a higher sentence because he failed a polygraph that there was so much baggage that scott simply wasn't credible to the jury and not only that but he said that he didn't think that the jury puts much appliance upon  now in terms of elmore scott's testimony his testimony was simply cumulative to the other witnesses if you the court looks at the transcript there's nothing that scott says that the other witnesses don't say and in fact what scott says is  evidence in the case documentary evidence eyewitness testimony from the towers and other eye witnesses so he really didn't add anything to the case and i think that was a factor in judge white's finding there was a second trial and scott testified what kind of witness would he be what he would result probably result in a little while this is a guy with a history of lying a history of perjury judge white said that he wasn't credible at the first trial imagine if he   at the second trial would he be credible it would be more credible or less credible i mean obviously he would be less credible and so i think that there's no way that joseph can meet that the most important factor for newly discovered  before scott was supposed to testify he refused to testify he said that he had been attacked three times in jail because he was going to testify for joseph so there's evidence on the record that he was scared to testify that he had been attacked because you were going to