my name is tony composing i'm an attorney from fresno california and basically there are two issues i want to discuss today i was going to deal with the press the final argument final arguments argument by the government i'd like to deal with the good faith instruction that was not given by the court is our position and i think it's a very strong case that the court erred in refusing to give a good case instruction and in this particular instance the given in this particular case we have someone from mexico had five years of education in mexico could speak some english work in the fields all her life truly didn't understand the basics of a tax return she relied on her accountant to prepare the tax basically saying i didn't now as i know it was put in front of me so she's not offering a defense that goes to the substance of any advice that she's leaning on as i understood it based on claiming i didn't know period and we live in the question of whether she knew something that was wrong was was ignorance well good faith reliance may explain why someone believes something or knows something may be incorrect they relied on somebody in this case is it's not i'm leaning on somebody to believe x it's because they were told that and what is that substantive thing here what is it that she was relying upon she were lying upon what was put in front of her was accurate that's true and that's something different and more likely to be there's no need to get a good case well the court in more specifically say that that's not correct  their instruction it read to the jury that the defendant signature on a tax return created a wee bubble presumption that the defendant actually signed the return in had knowledge of its contents that's a few instruction one or the proper instructions and i submit to the court we can't tell the learning cases a similar case a decided and stick circuit want to instructions are given one correct and one incorrect it's impossible to know which one the jury follow morning i mean john connally has the united states and has the defense is not aggress the second issue concerning our allegation of prosecutorial misconduct nor will the government unless certainly questions from the panel moving in order to the issues raised by the defense concerning the good upon her signature there was no other instruction that affirmatively said to the jury do not presume but why would the jury not make that inference well told that the government's position is that there were other instructions that clearly set forth the elements of the offense including knowingly police and specific intent and part of the problem here is that the jury may make those findings because they've been told that the signature is enough correct the jury was told in the instruction and the instruction came from a statute as well as from language and i return so the return that's a basis of three army of count two she did not sign and the government that was clear at trial that her signature was not on that return i give credit to defense counsel but he pointed out government requested the instruction but the at the record is abundantly clear that the instruction was never argued to the jury the instruction was not mentioned once during the defense the government's closing a rebuttal the instruction was never argued or mentioned by the honor they did not judge hoyle's practices not to do that he did not do that here the court the jury asked for one instruction during deliberations and they sent in one instruction that was the three seven you want to stretch in on conspiracy so the government does concede that the four words in this instruction should not have been added that is knowledge of its contents but those are the only four words the jury ever heard now by saying that of course the jury did hear the words and the government is not asking the court to ignore that the defense argues that there is no way to tell what the jury considered but what the government is asking this court to consider is that it was not brought to the jury's attention it was not argued by the government it was not highlighted and it was not by any means part of our case because the crux of the argument in the entire case intended that was the case where they did the court instructed on the spondee and superior and essentially instructed that the jury could apply despondence of perrier and convict an individual who wasn't essentially prep part of the offense and the court clearly inappropriate reverse so the government would submit that that does not apply and the walters case does clearly say that even if the presumption instructions in correct that that should not be considered standing alone that the presumption that the instruction should be considered as a whole case went to the jury was there any dispute on that issue i know there was not there was no just the her signature on the one return and i'm not sure the record makes it clear again i credit defense counsel's cross examination my recollection is that was the internal revenue service criminal investigation agent was on the stand and she was shown both returns in front of the jury defense counsel but this on cross examination it's clear by looking at both returns that the second signature is not hers and in fact the agent acknowledged that and in fact the defendant even said in her direct examination that she did not sign a return so that return was not signed by her concerning the good faith argument your honour's i believe the court has its argument well in hand this is not an issue of  the court referenced perhaps an issue of specific intent and the government would move even broader than that it would say it's an issue of act as reyes in the sense of the defendant said she did not do anything with the return except for the one return and sign it and the other she went to his office and in the one instance she signed the one return the other return she claims she doesn't know how that was signed and the evidence bears that out but concerning good faith they clearly cheat did not apply and the case relied upon most importantly by the that that error you do not have to give a good faith instruction if all the elements are properly satisfied the only reason the morris court reverses because the knowingly instruction was not provided and more is at least the government's reading of maurice's and mor knowledge that you do not need to give a good faith instruction if all the other elements are covered the problem was the knowingly instruction was not covered and therefore they felt that the absence of annoyingly instruction as well as the absence of the good faith instruction required a confusing scenario in the sense of what actually is claimed there was an issue as to whether or not when mr archer let out a prepared the returns what he did to put to make the returns false and it revolved around the cost of goods sold well i became an attorney and not an accountant for good reason because i don't understand accounting but my understanding is that the cost of goods sold figure necessarily reduces net profit there was an argument and made the statement by mr archer that indicate where he talks about the difference between i think it's a five hundred twenty five thousand dollars figure and a six hundred seventy five thousand dollars figure i mean have those numbers off slightly they can't increase the cost of goods sold by increasing the cost of goods sold he necessarily reduces net profit and i'm argument was just that the jury could should go with what they remember but my recollection is that the fence counsel when he stated that was wrong i didn't state he was being untruthful i simply stated he was wrong in his perception that mr archer letter did not well on the final argument argument it was a major thing at the time but again it's a slow lawyers interpretation of the evidence and i didn't object because i didn't want to bring more the jury to check the tension of what was happening there  jury split the hairs many of us to try to number of cases in this court is to try to number of cases and when the judge reads those instructions to the jury the court tells them don't take any one in assume that someone who signs that of things to their name to a vacuum and is going to have some reasonable familiarity with the numbers that are there whether or not they represent an accurate calculation based on legal principle replete that this woman again with a great education in mexico not here working in the fields all her life and starting a business later in her life she did not understand what was the net tax return the government argues that focus on that little yes this the issue in this case really that she knew that the bottom line number was that she owed eight hundred thousand four hundred seventy dollars or whatever the number was or that she knew that whatever the number that was in the return and present was false and the government's argument as i understand it is that look the jury doesn't ultimately care whether the numbers forty two thousand two hundred seventy three it's whether she knew that that wasn't true and that she was signing something that was the other elements are sufficient that the jury found what it really had to find and that this is sort of a tangent on the field that isn't what the conviction is based on because what the government did by that instruction is jump start their case they had something  judge tells the jury when your name's on there you know what's in it that that's to be a violation of due process put the burden on her to come back and prove that she didn't know in a good the government a leg up to prove an element beyond a reasonable doubt or maybe not the actual element but something preceding a condition preceding to the elements that had to be proved that they could manage to have it because they didn't argue with that judge that's a that's a facetious argument because you don't argue it to the jury doesn't mean the jury didn't consider it because you know the confidence of the argument not necessarily you know the kind of people that that's true i can and i can i can agree with that but the point is when the