honor is the reason that we're here today is to evaluate whether or not the jackson violated the federal carjacking statute and i think that the kind of the point for this consider is whether or not at the time he had been spent to treat the vehicle whether he also had the intent to cause serious bodily injury or death if the vehicle wasn't turned over we would submit that there is no evidence in the record and there is no possible inference from the evidence in the record to be able to prove that element of the carjacking statute and therefore this court must overturn that carjacking conviction  and i say that because the all of the evidence that is in this case points to a state crime none of it points for the federal charge act in violation the court has before it today and that is because at the time that david jackson took the vehicle he there is no even evidence that he had the intent prior to the prior to him going to the vehicle that he had the intent to take it from the alleged victim in went over to his place holder blocked him in and then while she was still in that we are her testimony is that he waived a rocket ok the government wants you to take that evidence that waiving of the rock at her and saying that show that he had the tent to use serious bodily injury or to cause death if she didn't hand over the car the problem with that is that her  testimony says that he waved a rock at her and told her to leave while she was still in the car so intent was not to take the vehicle at that point intent was for her to leave  designed for that prior incident because that that says that it doesn't have a time well but it but it doesn't have to be as prior if you want to back it i guess that's the quick that's the point i think that's correct and was that what the what was happening with the parties at the time that occurred and that's what is important difference in this case because you've got to remember that went over to his house and locked him in at his house it's this isn't a situation where somebody comes up in a parking lot where somebody is lawfully there and they take their car on them like the washington case for example washington cases a convenience store case right where somebody comes up to the convenience store and then they take the car from them in the convenience store  this is different than that but more than that even if you let's set aside this boy this direct testimony of what actually occurred with the rock because i think what i'm saying is that that doesn't necessarily prove his attempt but it improves what his intent twenty's waving the rock because that's the only evidence they would get we only have what the government's evidence actually is in the record in this case and the government's evidence that's in the records is this waving of the rock and then they cards not turned over and that's what's missing here in this case and that's what makes this case different from a lot of the cases that's in front of this pore there is no evidence that there was and that there was an attack either explicit or conditional that if she doesn't turn over the car serious bodily injury or death will occur in this case and that's what the government is required to prove under the statute and that's not what it's not  only other fact that the government even points to is the fact that when he backed up the car she was behind the vehicle at that point and they allege in their brief that that could have been an attempt that he was trying to run or over as he was leaving but again when you take a look at the actual evidence in the record side it's in pain is number seven one hundred thirty seven twenty one it doesn't show that at all this is testimony from one of the  neighbors at this point and the neighbor just basically says that he backed up and she was behind it and she stepped aside as deep as he was backing up that's the sum total of there was no discussion that he was gunning for a use backing up towards evidence in the record here that at the moment he went into the vehicle and took the vehicle he had the he had the threat conditional or otherwise to cause or serious bodily injury or death if she didn't where we're trying to prove the state of mind of this defendant mr jackson at the time he enters a vehicle i was referring to the evidence that shows the relationship between mr jackson and the women who were  if this is in this is that because one of the one of the two of the women that were on the scene are part of that or be evidence that occurred after the fact because they went forward with it and so we have the evidence that one of them got him while they were in miami florida we have the evidence that one of them being punched in the back of a head while they were in the car on the way to miami florida and then we have the threat that he made to the f b i after he's caught none of those facts go to proving his state of mind at the time he took the vehicle and that's the problem with the poor vi evidence in this case it is it's it shows he's a violent character that shows he's a bad individual which is what they're trying to show the jury but it can't go to show what his intent was as to move the boy on that particular day tha good morning i'm helen smith i represent the united states in the appeal have also represented the united states since july twelfth two thousand and thirteen when this child was kidnapped by his non custodial father and one out to be two drug impaired adult women and one drug impaired minor female and transported across proximately five state lines barreling down the how way at high rates of speed from greenville tennessee to miami florida where mr jackson in these three women were found in a motel on flagler street stoned beyond  description there are three issues three legal issues in the case your honor i think sometimes we get caught up in the technicalities of the arguments and we kind of lose sight of the facts in the case the facts were very strong judge greer you know and in essence this morning i'm defending judge greer on two of these issues and his rulings it is monor to defeat in the ruling he made he made the correct ones he was a highly accomplished trial or your whom i had the opportunity to litigate against before he took the b inch and he's very comfortable with the rules of evidence he conducted t hearings on the four hundred four b issues there was a complete disclosure by mass sat of all of the evidence and knew that i would lose some of those issues and i figured i would lose the issue about the evidence of the drugs and the prostitution and the guns and that's what he did he made a very careful ruling on the four hundred four b evidence and then a weekend elapsed and then again right before we started the trial he had another hearing to make sure that he had done the right thing and it's all right there on the record before for be evidence there when ian was correctly done it was almost all raised yes to and judge greer made the right ruling there is nothing that assaults th at regarding the synods that was imposed on mr jackson that mr shedd did not address i don't want to make it appear that i'm going unfairly but judge greer again it is my honor to appear before him and i know mr shed does not handle certain things with him so it's somewhat not fair but i judge greer's halley conscientious he agonizes over his sentences he he he remains the best cross examine are that i've ever saying even when you forget to ask the questions or your opponent forgets to ask that he ask the questions and sometimes they help me sometimes they do not but he is very conscientious the record that judge greer makes on his s things is impeccable and there is no basis to overturn the synods which leaves us on the sufficiency of the evidence the record speaks much more eloquently than i could do i will note that this was a very challenging case for may was a very challenging case for the f b i we we got a complaint we got a search warrant done and i made the mistake of looking at the department's statistics for the kidnapping of children because still your parents and their very graham they've been keeping stats since the thirty's i guess and seventy percent of children who are not returned to their custodial parent within thirty six hours are never seen alive again and the custodial peers and that quickened our pace we devoted a tremendous amount of resources including what can only be described as a canvassing of the motels on flagler street in miami florida we had boots on the ground the minute we had a positive id on a cell phone essentially this was very important it was very real and no we proceeded very judiciously and and carefully the evidence was as judge greer pointed out overwhelming at some points and i really don't know what else to say if you want me to answer his specific questions about prior he is but a manipulative and controlling individual he articulated his intent to her that he intended to remove this child and that's what drove everything he did in most carjacking cases and he's correct the car stolen to commit to flee a crime or to commit another crime the car was stolen here to make sure that she did not get that baby back it was a power struggle and violence or intimidation he intimidated her just as the intimidated and controlled these other women the only difference was he didn't give them drugs he didn't give bori drugs a lot of what the appell risk his case on is miss boyd's trial testimony which directly conflicted with her testimony before the grand jury and i found myself in the own usual situation of impeaching my own witness but that's exactly what happened she she she is a co dippin individual not at all unusual for this kind of case for that to happen and i guess that's why you bring him before the grand jury to lock him damn when we miss boyd announced that she was going to call nine one one he takes the phone from her hand and throws across the road in the ditches and that was never recovered i even went looked at it look for it never found that telephone he brandished the rocket missed boy he attempted run this board over with with the car he directed collina also known as bunny and step to assault miss boy he himself assaulted ms boyd all of the witness testified that jackson boyd rolled around on the ground fighting each other right there in front of the car he has threatened to kill stumbo and loughlin his co defendants and their children as part of this whole thing to  get them to do his bidding they they were terrified of the man he told them he had killed people and led them to believe that he would kill the him as well if they did not do as he was to as they were told and then of course we have his  immediately after he was booked i'm not going to repeat it because there are children in the room but it was quite obvious that he intended to kill him boyd even and it wasn't that many hours it was less than forty eight hours since the time that the car was taken this all you know her realisation at trial which was a year almost a year march i guess it was my twenty team in and i'm sorry july twenty two march twenty eleven is not stablish his intent at the time of the offense at that at the time that the car was taken he intended to harm her he was going to do anything to keep that baby away from her and in miami and that's what this case is about and in the problem is that this is a state kidnapping case and they're trying to shoehorn it into the federal carjacking statute because for whatever reason the state hasn't moved  and that's the real problem here this doesn't this federal carjacking statute under the facts that they presented in this case they want you to they want you to say don't listen to ms boyd's trial testimony because in the grand jury she said something different well this is a powell record is going to be based on the trial testimony if you review the the redirect examination you won't see her rehabilitated on this basic back which she says again on page seven sixty one which is he held a rock up and told me to get off his property that is that can't be chance for him to hold the call hold the rock up and say go in with the intent to get in the car and to murder her if she didn't give him the car that it's the opposite of that and that's the testimony that they need to rely on that in that's the basic problem with this case this is a