yes miss harrington yeah ask me to please the court i am julian hiring ten and i was assigned by this court to represent joseph people as on this direct appeal i did not represent mr people in the district court below actually mr people's who is not an attorney represented himself at this trial as your honour's are of course aware we raised four i'm sorry the government's violation of rule five c of the federal rules of criminal procedure and i think that was the st issue that's where i'll begin my comments today there can be no doubt that rule five c was violated here  it requires that a criminal defendant be brought before a magistrate court in the district where the defendant is arrested or in an adjacent district if the appearance can occur more promptly in that district or northern district of new york but the crime allegedly occurred at the chase bank which was located in rochester new york which is located in the west rochester is in the western district of new york and he was kept in the northern district overnight and then returned to the western district the following day and brought before a magistrate judge about nineteen hours after his arrest at the hotel there was no explanation ever offered by the government for th the failure to bring him before a magistrate in the northern district in fact to this day no expects planation has ever been offered it's just the way that they did it and it was during that overnight stay in binghamton before they returned him to rochester that he was interrogated by officers and during that interrogation he made some very and called the tory statements now those statements were actually used by the agents in the affidavit that they submitted to get the search warrant for his room at the grand oil hotel now the government argued and the district court agreed that there was no harm to mr people's because the government agreed not to use those inculpatory statements that he had made during that interrogation at trial they never said why they were agreeing to use it but presumably it was because they realized that they would have been suppressed anyway they just sent a letter to the court saying that they wouldn't use them without any explanation  but to say that that that doesn't matter because they were not used that trial completely disregards the fact that those statements were used in the complaint and the agents search warrant affidavit that was true that there was other information that was included in the search warrant about what witnesses had said about money that was found in various locations that they claimed had been stolen from the chase bank in rochester but none of them none of those witnesses had identified mr people as the person who brought the chase bank so they were able to use the statement to get that search warrant and it was from that search warrant that up a treasure trove of evidence was found in the hotel room were removed and that's that's what i that's what i'm getting at is that your understanding of it by the way the way that course we should proceed and so yes your honor that is that would be my argument and i think it's kind of a another issue that we raised here without the in court identification was what the government had relied on for the chase and bank employees there was some other evidence about seeing somebody on video  various bus stations the money that was left but there was no fingerprint analysis there was nothing really tying him directly to it and his statements really put everything kind of over the top i think once the judge saw that the direction of mr peoples that's definitely true and if your honour's have no further questions i would be happy to rely on my brief i see i've gone over my time i hope that you all stay safe and healthy  ok great i just want to start with where counsel ended up with the application for the search warrant there are very detailed accounts of eyewitness statements video surveillance the physical evidence recovered like the clothing and the tens of thousands of dollars in the trash can on the bus station and the cab that was used as a getaway vehicle but more than that there's the fact that the suspect identified himself as a joseph w people the rd to the rochester quality inn and he used his own id when he checked into that hotel when he was trying to shake you know law enforcement pursuit so almost that on its own i think would be a just establish probable cause but we also have the rest of the law enforcement investigation details and the application that is also included in the government appendix i think on page eight is when you get to the non interview statement so if this court reviews the application to know about excising the post arrest interview this would surely be sufficient to demonstrate probable cause but i would like to turn to that in court identification even if any of the accounts arguments have merit the  were harmless in the face of the overwhelming evidence a guilt in this case he left incriminating evidence every step of the way from rochester to binghamton as i noted thousands of dollars in cash half a dozen eye witnesses several of whom identified him trial beyond just tellers each of which was evidentiary breadcrumbs for police to follow the district court decision not to use any special procedures for that in court identification fell within the bounds of the discretion this court has directly held identify him if they were able and he failed to request a lineup as the court emphasized in archibald's district courts are under no obligation to stage what is effectively a lineup inside the courtroom and the totality of the circumstances here indicates there was little risk of misidentification for example there's no evidence that say he was the only african american man in the courtroom as was the case archibald or that witnesses were merely guessing that the perpetrator would be seated at the defense table again like happened in archibald many of those initial are present here these witnesses were one hundred percent sure of their identification they said his images quote drilled into my head for the rest of my life quote and that he quote never left my side the whole robbery one of the tellers even identified him by voice without being asked so these were not hesitant witnesses prone to mis identification on the contrary police here actually did conduct a show up on the day of the robbery with a different suspect to match the general description and even under those circumstances in the heat of the moment right after the robbery with a look alike presented to her by police officers mr yoso said no that's not him so i call it breadcrumbs but it quite literally was a trail of video evidence and surveillance and excellent attacked of work on the part of law enforcement who recognized the cabbies from their beat work and were able to speak with them within hours of  occurrence so so they did after he had mr peoples within i think less than twenty four hours of the robbery just because they were able follow the surveillance the eyewitness statements the cab the literal cash that was dropped along the way