that how it works during the trial where they normally speaking for each other's motions are they representing the individual defendants who they represented i believe there were several instances throughout the transcript where mr murphy did most of the talking and sometimes did talk on behalf of all three defendants i believe that is in the transcript now i mean this is an issue that the government has raised in their brief about the waiver doctrine you know if you fail to renew your motion for judgment of acquittal at the end of all the evidence does that mean you waived your previous motion at the close of the government's  just hope i'm not mistaken in saying this is my understanding therefore circuit has never actually hail that they have said that you know non obvious to opinion but i don't know that the th circuit has held that specifically but a occurred while jackson was incarcerated at the charleston county detention center so he's a little unusual it was never explained how he was able to do that from the from the detention center the government was alleging that miller was trying to help jackson get out of jail help him get a bond so he could get out of jail on a promise that was he was being held with now on now this this occurred in september of two that's the extent of the exchange that is the extent of the evidence that was introduced by the government to prove conspiracy between jackson and miller there was no idea was that there was there was evidence that their relationship was similar to resemble jackson's relationship with the other conspirators right getting rides when you needed one tech complex the purpose of your business operating the same same time and place miller's inconsistent testimony about whether they knew each conspiracy the two of them working together the way i read the transcript that is the extent of the evidence of conspiracy now i know less that's not evidence of anything illegal about any interaction between miller and jackson as she was alleged to have been trafficked both of them but she never said anything about interaction between the two  issues which does seem to be the biggest hurdle that we have except for mr miller's climate directed verdict if i may just point out his two issues three we believe that principles are plain enough which is what is required we do know that elements have to be proven every element does and it jury has to be unanimous as to do so we also know that if there's a chance of jury  addressing the dearth of cases regarding whether or not a six trafficking conspiracy of five thousand and ninety four would require that same rule but there's no reason to accept it from me because there's no case that does that and certainly and seventy one there can be a conspiracy regarding any of the myriad of tens of thousands of wells help here and we know under all of those cases that if there's a risk of jury confusion that there should be that unanimous  limited instruction regarding the objects of the conspiracy and we believe that applies here and while we will say primarily the issue we've addressed regarding whether it's trafficking of force or trafficking of a minor going either way on that issue there is no president applying it to that specific that right so then how could it possibly be playing for the court to sue a sponte given instruction to the jury to that effect but just like to hear sa mots mentioned women are aligning with the attorney general or u s attorney in that case indicated there's never a case is exactly on force that actually with any well but is it the general rule that a court boss in most contexts channel the jury's discretion in a way that they specify what the object the object of the conspiracy is or is it to the contrary that a jury you know own that there's still this confusing issue miller did to be involved because if it's not a conspiracy with the three of them it's not the conspiracy theory they are just not conspire is alleged as in mr miller's not ways that can be proven the testimony of a person with actual knowledge which includes the person's own age and that actually is the case in the us true opinion which is and so we believe that that alone is a different and she's not nude in the facebook photo oh and so we believe that that that is a difference also in the vosper case it does of her based on photos they also for because there is other evidence of needs to be unanimous and that in turn is that whether there's multiple conspiracies we believe together very tightly to show that it's hard to stick the needle through all the parts of the hold but in this case the fears over last such that is rowing is to have the rest of the content that we've got in this court with the jury left to fill in the gaps because we do agree that there is sufficient evidence to convict some of these people of something and want to go back to part of the directed verdict and spiritual and the plain error standard it seems to me or you believe it's pretty similar regardless of the standard is any evidence whatsoever and and if miller's case is thrown out it if it's any evidence whatsoever it seems to me whether it's plain or not there's not a lot of leeway there is there any evidence at all if your question of i think the car rides there's new evidence that those car us anything to jackson and miller in there or anything else but my argument mainly focuses on improper statements and inflammatory language in the government's response they repeatedly said that there was nothing unusual or inflammatory statements nothing improper and instead suggested that the appellant's were parsing the government's argument for minor influences so i think in some ways this court has some easy questions to answer that in objective summary of the evidence just twice tell the jury that the six co defendants would say would testify that all three of these defendants routinely raped young women long was it appropriate for the prosecutor to repeatedly say he wasn't calling other victims to this case because they'd be too traumatized he wasn't calling due to the case because the jury would be traumatized and it s there were more victims out there more people out there willing to testify that the prosecutor knew about this evidence but he wasn't bringing forth a jury and the question is is that appropriate for a prosecutor to do in the end only one victim not to intervene yes at that stage because there was no objection to the state well as a i think it was planted here i think there are some things that the prosecutor can do again represent the defense i'm not saying the course should represent but obviously they have to be some gave way and i think you know one of the things that i consistently think about during opening statements during closing arguments the defense attorney is st listening to the statement listening to the other things prosecutors say that point top and i think there's also going to be some burden on the prosecutor not to say things like that and i think a lot of this stuff is one of the one law school you don't stand up and say i believe the victim i think she would lock and i think that's a are a lot of that i mean you make a good point right a lot of that is the defense counsel making a judgment call do i want to stand up and object a prosecutor saying that the victim should be able or am i  let that go because i don't want to draw attention to it i don't like a bully it's easy to make that judgment call and then come up here on appeal and say well the judge should have intervened all of that was wrong when at the time it was a legitimate defense judgment worse than standing up and say these to fill teen leave raping young women i mean you know again it goes back to this miller thing were you know the government repeatedly in its brief is saying this facebook message stands for miller trying to get jackson out of jail and them trying to assist in brand evidence not just fine and the prosecutor has actually said that repeatedly they were covering their tracks trying to make evidence disappear so not only do we have th and i don't know why these defense attorneys miss this stuff i don't know why they missed the calculus pitting again most of the stuff is in our brief pitting it was just absolutely amazing how much it can take there seems to be at some point in time no way you can say that that shouldn't play a judgement call to let them continue to do that mr miller actually you know was accused of lying and made to apologize to the jury i cannot see how put in jail for objected it was interesting your honor i mean there are some times where i think mr murphy objected to or asked about a closing charge and the judge immediately cut him off said no we're not going there i don't know why i can't tell you what they did i can tell you they didn't do it didn't object they didn't put these out there i think they are brief oh i don't is going through what what makes about you know problem is when the prosecutor is saying i have personal outside of the record knowledge that uniquely makes me qualified to tell you that this is a credible witness and that's not what happened with that statement that statement if you in the transcript it's going through exactly what the record evidence is and is saying essentially briana evans is a credible witness would have been much better practice to say based on this evidence brianna it's credible yes but in the sort of the tongue you know i'm sure i'll sit down and wish i had said things differently and that's not the kind of plain error that was so prejudicial in this or really isolated statement and again it's not pointing to any kind of extra record evidence on the overall issue of a lot of the plain error arguments here are about the conspiracy charge so before getting into exactly why there is no legal error with any of those i think it's conspiracy overall as to all of the conspirators and i think there's also sufficient evidence as to corey miller but just in terms of what the government's evidence showed as to the overall conspiracy it showed and again the jury was instructed here that what the government had to prove was a mutual understanding between the cooperators to cooperate to accomplish an unlawful act that's the unobjective to a jury instruction it create one thousand and twenty four dollars and the overwhelming evidence of that you have testimony between conspirators that they're teaching one another how to track pick testimony between the conspirators when you have five who testified that they have the same sort of rules about how the women can and can interact with one another and with other  traffickers know wouldn't work with one another but that's not the standard you know we cite from the johnson case in the banks case you don't have to know every person in a conspiracy and there can be major players and minor players but you know you have there's some implication in the briefs even though it's never really argued directly that the defendants position is that maybe you know there's a separate group of three traffickers in this you know and then the traffickers who are on trial here but you know i mean even sean currie who they would seem to imply is a different group there's evidence that he gave one of pocari mcmillan that he gave her a ride one of her victims to a train station there's plenty of evidence that they're cooperating you have evidence that when some of these folks again mr mcmillan didn't have money for a hotel room that one of the other conspirators actually gave him a hotel room out of which he trafficked women  and you have the evidence that after and this goes and helps to put in perspective i think the facebook messages from mr miller you have evidence that once mr jackson is arrested that he is communications with mr singletary about trying to silence lindsay winds and keep her away from law enforcement and there's testimony that mr jackson had communications with tremelo black about trying to keep bethany haney away from law enforcement so that is certainly strong evidence of a conspiracy and importantly that is evidence that puts in context the government's evidence about those facebook messages so you know there's certainly record testimony that mr jackson didn't have a bomb so you know i don't know why he's reaching out to have mr miller come and visit him into the jail i think the inferences that the jury could have drawn are you know is this a social visit between the traffickers or they can look at the other evidence that's present in the record and say you know what this evidence shows is that you know he's reaching out just in the same way that he reached out to mr single well when this is this may be a difficult question because a obviously when you look at a conspiracy you don't take any single piece of evidence in isolation but consider all of what transpired and all the evidence in the record and you've gone over some of that but can you point to this one that there is one piece of evidence that is sort of strongest in your view to show that this was a single conspiracy as opposed to two separate conspiracies is there any way to  it mean you're out of the it seems that in some of this court's prior standards this is standard for a single conspiracy is you know from the cracker decision do you have the same objective the same goal the same nature and the same geographic conspiracy right certainly your honor but you know i think the argument that was really being put forward at trial and perhaps it's evolved and it's still not even that if it's briefing clearly argued that there are two separate groups i think that's an implication that you can read between the lines but the defendant's argument has always been that they were independent operators and really the multiple conspiracy instruction and the way that we understand the defendant's argument is really going to a sufficient argument that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove any conspiracy you know if the if the point was that there were multiple conspiracies they could have asked for that instruction they didn't ask for that instruction and the instruction that the court gave you know allowed the jury to say was there a conspiracy here at all and you have plenty of evidence again of the sharing of brides of you know the trading of women between the groups of consumers you know there's literally record evidence of women being sold and transferred between the traffickers and there is plenty of evidence for a single conspiracy and they did request a multiple conspiracy instruction and we're not aware of a case where you have a reversal on planar where you haven't requested that kind of instruction here there is overwhelming evidence to show that there was a single conspiracy and we think that evidence as to mr miller is plenty of evidence especially if you mean those facebook used the word cooperative their use that equivalent to conspiring your right word cooperate in i mutual understanding and you know only pointing out that jury instruction because that is something that that kind of the jury and even to the standard briefing is something that the defense hasn't objected to is setting too low bar if i can i'd like to is that the conspiracy charge the government of course agrees that the jury has to be unanimous as to the elements of the crime and the jury was so instructed here that element that's relevant here as to a fifteen  conspiracy charge is to file a section fifty nine to one to commit sex trafficking which as the sex trafficking statute discussion can be done either through force fraud or trafficking of a minor for purposes substantive offense they carry different statutory sentencing consequences but in the context of the conspiracy charge it's the government's argument that those would be alternative means and this is a novel issue coercion but the court can be confident here that there is no prejudice to the defendants given that all of these defendants were convicted based on overwhelming evidence of substantive force fraud  coercion offenses so you know there's no reason to believe that the jury would have been confused as to the lack of a specific unanimity requirement or would have reached a different verdict which is the showing that  defendants would have to make to show that they had been substantially prejudiced i'm just briefly on the age here's a issue again it matters that this issue is being brought up on plane or you know there are three witnesses who testimony they're objecting to is the basis of hearsay for the reasons we've explained in our brief we don't believe that any of those statements were hearsay but the idea that the government hasn't proved s p s age is not the case there  testimony that we believe is not hearsay testimony and i think it's important to keep in mind what the substantive standard as to that element is the government didn't have to prove that these defendants who have substantive trafficking convictions as to s p mr jackson had a sexual relationship with her mr mcmillan was spending time with her in hotel rooms there's no question that they had that reasonable opportunity you to observe so if the issue is just some hypothetical we don't really know that s p is a minor again if there had been any objection that that wasn't actually a proven fact and if defendants had objected in real time the government certainly could have put on you know further about the similar techniques and methods one thing i want to say about that the government called national agent james hardy of the f b i had him qualified expert witness and sex trafficking techniques and procedures and things similar methods and techniques but if you look at what he's testimonies is he what he's saying is these are common techniques and methods used by sex traffickers throughout the united states nationwide he was saying t it was it was proof of techniques throughout the united states used all things and then also on the multiple verses single conspiracy issue i ask that you look at the timeline we included a timeline in our brief taylor curley worked with taylor and parker but not jackson and mcmillan although he knew them jackson and mcmillan knew each other jackson and miller knew each other but not die working together like you what we're serving and we are storing it there is no cope with it we're miserable evidence that she was a lie and we've heard it and i will say this it required almost no more effort for the he says you have to decide whether or not they entered an agreement to commit the crime of a and then he gives a description for the crime scene and he changes it to the disjunct and he gives  object we also believe that that is kind of this set of instructions that would be also related to the multiple conspiracy if it's not that conspiracy of multiple smaller conspiracies it's not and then on the other hand when you do so consider being unanimous on the object and we believe that given those two together and the lack of competent prevent a this should be reverse nine percent of its talk about what happened in this conspiracy talking about other people and then they said we'll see miller gave jackson a couple of car rides so he must be years well jackson talk to other people about not having witnesses show up there for when miller talks to jackson he must be talking about making briana disappear that's the danger of the conspiracy there is no real proof there that facebook messaging cannot mean anything it could mean that they were planning to get married next week it it could mean their plan to make it i open an ice cream parlor together but it has nothing in there regarding this conspiracy just because he gave him car rides  enough if miller's not in the conspiracy evidence that he raped brianna so all that prejudicial information goes to every one of the conspirators especially considering these charges underpin kirton all their acts could be considered they gave someone a car ride or because they were talking in regards to the supposedly this statement about i breathe believe brianna there are too many misstatements from the prosecutor in this case twice again