we had morning and was the core simon henderson from the office of the federal public defender here on behalf of town james thurman tanner i'd like to reserve four minutes for a bottle and i'm going to focus my arguments on count three which is the receipt  st i'm happy to have survived any questions anyone has about anything else so this case this case raises the question whether a person can be convicted of criminal receipt of child pornography based on the e mail found in a rd part preclude that find your reaction to this the my understanding is that your client openly admitted that he regularly received child pornography and this account and already gone to somebody we don't know if if you did anything we don't know what happened but we're just going to assume that all of these things happened because in some other instance what he thought of her child pornography he be accepted it he  i didn't quite hear something because it's because it's a bench and also as opposed to a jury and also i mean only in the following sentence which is that we wouldn't generally know if a jury had had reason using no i mean we we assume that a district judge is going to properly apply the law it is absolutely clear in american law and i think one of the cases describes it as a underlying opens it up he views it he he no he will knowingly accept it because that's that's his character that's the kind of guy he has that's just a propensity and so mr hunter said can i ask you so you say that we're suppose anything to exercise i mean you can control over and those questions this just can't help for dominion and control the government would have to show either that he's manually downloading it or not downloading it that he's doing something like in the wrong case where the defendant saves it saying it temporarily saves the images views them in word as the manipulates them and in doing so exercises meaning in control here again the only thing we know about the female the only reason we know it exists is that we find it in in a sense of the rd artist so there's just that there's that evidence very coutts with regard to  sounded well someone using his account sends an email three hours later this account this e mail comes back from the same account we don't have any phone calls there's no text and email saying and here's something previous and something back to me  there's no there's no history of interactions where one person sent something and the other person send something back it's just totally a contractual for all we know he was expecting this was a friend you know of a strange and perverse but friendly gesture cache be attributed to him could he could he be considered to have received them and again that was in a sentence in context so that's only by proponents of the evidence and this court said no you can't do that unless there's there's some evidence of  knowing knowingly accepting and exercising dominion and control so even if you're soliciting images you're out there seeking things like this you still there still under the law an opportunity to reject the things that are being offered  doesn't he is not guilty of receipt and to the extent that the email ever reached gives his account the only evidence would be that it was deleted because it doesn't show up anywhere in google it doesn't show  anywhere and in his inbox it's not on its phone there's no record of it and so on as the agent testified that that means that if you got to his account he deleted it at some point deletion is about the only way there is to to reject in  k this point about him believing it and showing guilty knowledge is is in some sense beside the point again because to get there you have to make so many assumptions about the email arriving at his account  mouth him opening the email him scrolling down and seeing the images there's just no evidence to support any of that all of that is speculation so i think it's speculation to you about what if he you know if you bel held in rom that the defendant there start out the images by going on websites and even though these these images were downloaded i don't magically to his has account that it had access to that past account  anybody that she was going to have sex with him because he couldn't both get sent to prison for this in quotes does the fact that he was aware of at least the laws relating to having sex with minors bear any have any relevance to his understanding of law about child pornography images indeed it is coming your different e mails floating around but the specific e mail that is the the you know it issuing count pretty was not found in the google discomforting wasn't found anywhere except for in this  that interview no your honor not the inference i mean he doesn't make any blanket doesn't say i did this with every know her email i've received so he's saying in other instances i've received ok you know let's let's just say there are no problems with that it's still not going to deal with well did he ever get it if you got it did he open it up for this sort of saying that well because he has the character or he's like he's it isn't a concern here that in order to be guilty of this this counts that he had to have it there had to show some sort of potential material in his possession and so in other cases the images provide possessed on computer desks or some other type on the phone itself and in this case there's the concern might be that there's no proof that