i'd like to say good morning to all of course and i hope everyone is safe during these trying times and a lot of mr rasco i want to start off by saying and getting right to the point that without a doubt at least in our eyes wel i do process and a fair trial and substantial rights to present a defense in this matter i have a couple issues that i would like to specifically address i'm not going to address every single issue that we a to in our moving papers but i want to focus on two primary issues right now please number one is which i find very interesting and i hope you guys do or everyone does is the issue pertaining to the not allowing the limiting jury instruction or guarding the acquittal of mr dread in his st trial as we all know now mr burr dred had a st trial where he was acquitted of two of the three counts the conspiracy charge and falsifying an official document which i believe is the whole issue in this case is february th two thousand and eleven incident report and how that relates to the hung jury count in count three with lying or obstructing justice with the f b i it was acquitted of the st two counts why is that relevant and is relevant because the transcripts of the nd trial and the motion in limine rulings are very crystal clear that the government's whole theory and attack was the fact that mr dredd lie in his st incident report that was his only report that he tender regarding this and said it interesting to know that mr dredd a deputy sheriff with no prior history no prior problems interesting he here's report st and without in any way collusion with any of the other deputies who were charged and tried and eventually convicted including sergeant them solace but most importantly about that issue is the whole thrust of the nd trial and one must dance what is the difference what was the difference between the st and the nd trial to fall and these there are two main arguments number one being that once requested and other conduct relevant conduct or not was introduced with respect to a four hundred and four ruling by the district judge then absolutely absolutely without a doubt the  acquittal jury limiting instruction should have been tendered what did the district judge rely on the district judge relied on the north end case with all due respect to that case and i'm not trying to say it's not binding that was the and fifty case seventy years ago that case rule and without getting into it had to do with two things illegal fishing and bribery of a warden or state officer with respect to that issue i could understand the difference be tween the nordgren rolling and the dred case they're totally different one can think they were not illegally fishing and also still believe if there is a problem going to try to fry an official the two are not matched together that is different than mr dreads case the appellant's case in the appellate case everything everything alluded eptions to the f b i or anything alluded to and interesting to note the actual incident report was introduced as an exhibit so everything related to that february  thousand and eleven incident report but now the government is trying to say well we can get it into based on relevant conduct but a limited jury instruction is not appropriate interesting to know with respect to and i wrote this down and i'm looking down on page forty three of the government's moving papers the nd to last paragraph last sentence it says those to says tense and they're citing there that there is room and possibilities to in fact allow a limited jury instruction based on acquittal evidence or facts right there in their own language in addition with respect to the search zone case with the v it's interesting because i wrote it down that says a quibble evidence is not usually admissible exactly similar to the wording that i just cited from the government three it specially just like in the case law cited by everyone in our moving free electively we have when the evidence is introduced the court has a responsibility and duty the district judge of course to tell and in for the jury about the limit in fact in addition at closing time during jury instructions to again mention this in court and critical fact everything about this case i'm a trial lawyer everything about this case have to do with did he lie did he lie did he lie and in this case it all goes back to the exact issue that i've mentioned about the fact about is  mistrial and only incident report it is crystal clear that it was the government's whole theory so what can what changed between the two trials one the jury never was able to receive the most important  fact that he was acquitted of the exact conduct that the government relied on i can't think of anything more unfair in a trial it's truly upset but besides that fact and trying to be still demonstrative about it the next issue is whether or not and now i'm going to transition into the nd main point that we have is the rule under federal rules of evidence six hundred and ten dollars and the troll records and the time subpoenaed these toll records and had two separate f b i agents testify about the dance they had an exhibit which had the toll records the taps the communications phone calls everything on a whole big charge that was introduced as an exhibit but when mr dread testified to explain the contents of these particular communications between himself and  about the critical point of the conversations so under a rule six hundred and ten dollars of the evidence go it's interesting evidence of police and opinions regarding religion are normally in admissible that's not what happened here again the district court and our opinion committed reversible error and misjudgement by ruling and i think her line was religion has no proper place here well that has nothing to do with that rule that rule has nothing to do with explaining the communications and the content of the taps and phone calls between the sergeant and this sheriff's difference we are not arguing or appellant is not arguing that we want to introduce religion into the trial to bolster his credibility is credibility was posed by his background his family and everything else that he has done in his life up to that trial both the st trial and the nd trial comes from wonderful family is mother was a clerk for a district judge his father was a sheriff's deputy who had a high ranking and so he comes from a good family that was the credibility issue in the character witnesses it and nothing to do with religion to the point the government  totality of circumstances the court and he court could take to distil notice of a fact that happened in a trial so we do not believe that it's hearsay we believe that it's relevant to provide the jury with the true foundation of what's happening during the proceedings and the substantive arguments by the defense that that top line and the merits it specially when the government keeps on relating back to the rel conduct issue and they are the reason why they believe it's admissible so we believe that there is no hearsay issue or rule and interesting to note and i'm not trying to say this is binding in any way because ike suspected that question in state court i practice and state court too there's a lot right on point that allows this exact type of evidence when the government seeks to introduce evidence of issues or conduct that somebody has a ready been credit there's no hearsay it's admit the simple i just wanted to throw that in there because i thought that was important but i understand the issue that the government says and there are one or two sentences that no matter what it's still hearsay we're not offering it with respect to a hearsay argument we're offering to dowse to to distil notice and the district judge absolutely has the right to inform jurors about not only an acquittal and that's why by the way in other cases that this issue has a risk and besides the case i start not excited nor grand and the other districts obviously those cases that have the issue have gotten by the issue of hearsay those cases have the rule that it's interesting to me that what they have found is not really attacking the issue of the limited jury instruction what they have found is the fact that the due process rights of the defendant at the time of the trial were not violated so in combination it's crystal clear that mr dred did not receive a fair trial and this argument would be different if this was the verdict after the st try it wasn't so something materially changed and is substantial rights were definitely violated and it's very troubling there are a couple other issues such as you dread was allowed to testify to subject matters of one what their conversations entailed in certain circumstances that had nothing to do it religion d i agree with your honor however the main content and what was disallowed was that subject matter because you know frank please speaking and i always try to have credibility myself not always i do is when you are a juror and you see charts and you hear evidence about two grown men being three thousand phone calls maybe four thousand texts you might wonder wait a nd that seems to be an os huge amounts of communications that most people probably do not and you don't develop but that's the other issue with respect to allowing allowing which was objected to these toll records that went from two thousand and ten to two thousand and fifteen instead of the critical time period of february two thousand and eleven to july of two thousand and twelve the interview so again not only was the district judge wrong in not allowing the contest now i agree i agree if you take that is shoe exclusively i would agree with your honor that that point alone does not connotate you know this and i'm going to find someone guilty or not guilty but in combination with everything else three of articulated in our moving papers and i just want to say one thing about hearsay how come the district judge allowed your say reports of the other tests the fine deputies when clearly they that the records should not have been admitted so i see i'm running out of time only i mean all malls and i'd like to reserve a little time that i believe i have so i will submit on that and if there's any specific question of course i'm here to be just about where exactly on the money on your time of your time for a bubble was and so on a man i give you an extra two minutes f go ahead with the charge but you're not making an argument here are you and that's a great point that's why i did not allude today in my two main arguments about the constructive amendment argument that we also of course reading everything about that i understood that so i'm not limiting the asked matter i'm just going back to the main thrust that in this particular matter is the great example of the exception of when acquittal evidence should be introduced in the limiting jury instruction and the fact that the norton case that everyone is the light of on especially in the th circuit and the district judge in this case that case is that you know i don't want to use the word archaic that i want to be disrespectful to the age of seventy but at the same time i think we need song fresh ruling on this specific issue and i think this is the tax case for that to in that it didn't go directly to an element of the offense not the other hand the danger of them for prejudice that the testimony about to delete a conversation what appealed to the jurors of religious beliefs whether they agree with the defendant religious beliefs or not sheriff's department and the very next question is how did your relationship change printers relationship with our single dollar put the printer responded yes we were my source of strength was and i told him towards the government objective the very next question after that the defendant constitutional argument no defense was actually excluded defendant was allowed to testify that these conversations have been solid and nothing to do with the creole incident in fact he did government i was a prosecutor that they missed the point of the argument they mention just now to ever this panel that about a conspiracy about falsifying a report they mention to the exact issues as they always have as to the content that he was acquitted to and his judge korman correctly pointed out that this trial was identical to the st trial so what is the difference the only difference could see is the whole record charge so it is identical so what is the difference the difference is do you allow the substantive right of a defendant a deputy sheriff to present the limited jury instruction st the whole rapper's that's the only issue i see with respect to the ass matter that has been alluded to there's no language in that case that says anything about nor grant and or a limited jury instruction the government cannot have it both ways they cannot say we're going to hold lou to a false report and a conspiracy but not allow that just bend in his socks the right to interviews the acquittal evidence is that evidence has been introduced and as judge league correctly points out we are not arguing that religion should come in on all trials but in this case this isolated case when you have all of these text all of these phone calls one or two questions about the content of the majority of the calls should have been allowed and that condit deal content deals directly with religion and his jugs we point out i'm sure they were not talking because i'm in los angeles about the dodgers losing last night so i don't understand how they can have it both ways he did not get a fair trial and it's of savvy because what's the difference from the st trial and the  nd well i'll tell you the district judge's rulings that were unfair and in combination we have shown this is not a harmless error this is a prejudicial error and i will submit on that unless there's other specific questions  of perceiving i accept the ruling by of course your circuit the th circuit and what happened in the interlocutory appeal but that has nothing to do with the issue of north korean which i believe is way outdated law and certain exceptions that can be shown if appropriate on an ad hoc basis the fact that the trial was allowed to commence just to count to three and there was no collateral stop all even judicata it doesn't matter that has nothing to do with the issue of giving notice to a jury of the weddell evidence based on a limited jury instruction that is totally fair and was proper to do how can a jury rely on information of relevant conduct which was done fred a kit of the whole case and on the left them with my question have taken your way over your time so i understand unless my