witnesses at issue in this case everyone told the government the following information that they made a political contribution at the request of mr wellman that the money came from mr wel witnesses and mr wellman were thinking about when they when he gave them the money some of the witnesses said that they understood they were being paid for past debts or that they were given loans to the government  conveyed something of value exchange for a governmental action a quid pro quo the question about what the arrangement was between mr wellman and the witnesses makes no difference to either element of that offense that the government was investigating so in this case we had one question to one witness about materiality the government financial analyst said that we're trying to understand the nature of these contributions and the source of the money close quote but there was no false statement about the source of the woman the government knew before they asked a question from bank records and other sources mr wellman was the source before and asked question and the witnesses didn't deny the government's witness in explaining what was the material never explained what he meant by nature of the contribution and there was never any other evidence offered on this point but we know from the elements of a six hundred and sixty six prosecution that the only important part of about the nature of a payment was whether it was offered in exchange for a particular governmental act and neither the questions maury answers related to that issue so the statements about how the witness and mr wellman were characteriz payments even if those statements were false could not have impeded the government's understanding of the nature of the payments in any way that was relevant to a six hundred and sixty six investigation or prosecution it is the essence of a false statement trial or an obstruction trial that the government must prove that the conduct was important for paul statements counts we call them materiality element for an obstruction count we call that element a question of whether the action suit pedia the grand jury's investigation or the agency's investigation but both really mean the same thing the government has to show that the false statement was in some way important enough to an investigation into a federal crime to attach a criminal penalty and that's where the government failed here so let me say it this way what if the proof were that mr wellman intended to bribe city councilman for government favors with the money all came from people that he had loaned money to and he really intended to give it back that's a six sixty six dollars polish it wouldn't make any difference whether he donated the money himself or he made gifts to other people to do it or he encouraged donations from wealthy friends that issue doesn't relate to any of the elements of the crime and it's not a defense to any of the elements of the crime so it's not material to a six hundred and sixty six dollars prosecution in their in their brief that not a trial but in their brief the government says that if the contributions were made as part of a straw contribution scheme then the likelihood of a quid pro quo rises astronomically high but that's not true at all in this case because loaning money to make a contribution violates kentucky straw contributions statute just as much as giving a gift or contribution where they were st interviewed and which part of the stats under which word in the statute is violated is immaterial the question is was the question in the false thought was that there was robbery going on here and there were suspicious contributions made to the to these candidates and the answers to why those contributions were made and for what purpose were intentionally relevant to exactly especially in the current context of a political caught a campaign contribution so campaign contributions a situation in which somebody is allowed to give money to the benefit of a government  question is is it in exchange for a particular government so that the that the government official is is able to get so so that's the important question that's the element that the government have to have to prove it couldn't prove also no no such charges were brought but the method of transfer of that money between between two parties  all admitted that they gave money at mr weldments request didn't make it any more likely or any less likely that there was and the chance to get a particular government action and out of those maybe doesn't matter what the answer or so they had it does your honor the statute talks of that false statements so the statements are made by the witness and presumably you know sponsored questions from the government so it's the it's the it's the answer that is either illegal or illegal but the question also tells us something about alex material how the answers are material and in this case they so that look if wellman just contributed his own that's one case if he looks the way people normally bundle that's another case but if he affirmatively paid a huge amount of money in his own pocket that's another case and wasn't this relevant to whether that  option was the in reality what happened well two responses you're on first of all this is there was not a huge amount of money and i'm involved in this case the total a part is that bundling money and helping bundle money to be contributed to a candidate is also illegal if it is done in exchange for a particular governmental favor so if i go out and ask him to my friends to make contributions and that the congressman or the councilman and i have this understanding i'm going to get all these contributions for you but in exchange for doing that you're going to give me a government favor that's also illegal so the relationship between the person with an interest the encourager and the person who actually makes the payment that relationship is immaterial it has nothing to do with the elements of the crime it's not a flip side of what we've been talking about today so one way you can look at the question is is the statement made to the grid jury or to the investigator that serial to that investigation and the other way of looking at it is is there a nexus between a federal investigation as opposed to a state court investigation and the statement that the government believes is holes so i think it is chapman and here judge givens good afternoon your honour's james chapman for the united states may please the court i'd like to begin if i major trailer with your last question to my friend and i believe the question was should the investigate should be obstruction of the grand jury investigation sort of be tied to a specific proceeding i think we certainly have that in this case  obviously given the ties to the grand jury testimony at issue but i do think that statute is broader than surely out presenting false testimony at a grand jury proceeding itself it is obstruction of the grand jury investigation and that certainly includes interviews by law enforcement officers yeah i think that the shape that i was i was trying to get now not to narrow the way you just suggested i may have inadvertently tried to do but just to make jury can reasonably conclude that that contributions to political candidates are more likely to be a product if it is part of an orchestrated straw donation campaign as opposed to if you should the individuals simply made the decision on their own accord for whatever reasons they desire to donate to a political candidate on their own because your honor the the odds of that donation being the quid for a subsequent pro rises astronomically as we said earlier if the hero the councilman or thick little candidate is aware that all of these donations are not actually in reality just individual donations from some citizens who like their policies but instead are actually part of a stro campaign orchestrated behind the scenes by a single individual who is wanting something in return for the for that donations here of course it sunk in but you knew that all of it came from in the says that he had bundled it we knew the source yeah right so we did not know the reasons well you know but what what difference would it make why is it material whether it came out of his pocket or he just hustled like crazy with other people because if it comes out of his pocket for  for the reason reimbursing a straw down or that is that is materially different than if he simply made the decision well i just want to give this person one thousand dollars because they donate why is it more likely a bribe if if it was a straw man as opposed to presenting the candidate with whatever amount it is is you know here i go is this what you want because the odds that the candidate understands that this money is coming with with the expectation of something in return rises astronomically when this is a strong contribution campaign why i mean asking why i want to know your reasoning because it's your your if your friend is saying it doesn't this long as you know that it's from that person it doesn't matter the circumstances don't matter in a man's skin you why the circumstances change the entrances because from one of the essential elements of a federal bribery charge is sort of is corrupt intent and that and orchestrating strong contribution campaign that absolutely goes to intent and goes to corruption as this court very eloquently said in terry not every contribution is a bribe in sheep's clothing we have to be able to differentiate between legitimate contributions and contributions that could be considered a crime and this is one every case is going to be different of course but if a strong contribution campaign exists and is just one indication that this could be a  originated or played out but i would do that it probably either began with observation of a pattern of contributions from people who had limited about you know what the money was for and so on and so forth is that facts really what happened is that pretty close yes or are it is ok and good those would have been the bets that would have made a federal law enforcement proceed further to try to interview some of the individuals who had a what were presented to the  one or two exceptions all of these individuals told the investigators false stories about the reasons that mr wellman had repaid their contributions do we take anything from the fact that you never indicted the defendant on bribery charges your honor the the investigation for bribery was actually opened up under the names of the councilman not mr wellman i don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment too much on on that investigation i don't the short answer to your arms question is no i don't think there's much to take of that you don't judge the existence of an investigation or bust material to that investigation based on the investigations outcome you judge it based on the allegations under investigation at the time sufficiency with regard to the three camps the aiding and abetting the false statements the three who didn't give you are that is a portion of it that is not the extent of it but absolutely the overall pattern of obstruction that was unveiled at trial we do think that that can color believability of the three witnesses that your hon referring to now specifically as to mr collins we have a few examples of independent evidence that supports that action st of course his contrary grand jury testimony was read into the  consider it is substantive evidence when you're deciding whether to believe something like it was a strange instruction at your r and i don't recall the specific instruction that you  referencing i do know in the trial transcript there is a colloquy between judgement and the attorneys where he where that was discussed that the grand jury testimony came in not only for impeachment but also for subst ok so we have a grand jury testimony as to mr collins so to two aspects that are common among all three of these witnesses are one that mr wellman was the driving force behind their contributions he's the reason they gave  temporal proximity between their contribution and the subsequent reports i think you know examples it's the reimbursement is either the same day or the following day but in all of them they are extremely closely tied to cor l i understand that and i think it's very clear that all of these were screaming contributions but that's not the question the question is whether they're full statement to the contrary were aided and abetted by wilma as opposed to their own feeling like i wasn't supposed to do this so we're going to make up a story well you're on and so to go to that point for mr call and specifically he did recognize in his testimony he used a lot of weasely words he said but the key one that i want to point out to your honor is he said it would appear that mr wellman wanted him to stick to his story of the grand jury and so we think in the given all those proof from mr collins and and the overall proof that was present at the trial the jury acted well within its province to disbelieve that bad denial of mr collins and in fact believe the opposite that we think that is this is why our juries exist in our system we want them to make these credibility determinations industry acted well within its province here as to mr nash so to the same two things with mr w driving force behind the contribution of coral proximity i would point out that mr nash admitted on the stand that it was that mr wellness check to him was a reimbursement and  testimony we think that in and of itself again to a reasonable jury we think a jury to reasonably see that resignation after eighteen or nineteen years as as him because as him being uncomfortable with what he knows he's about to do take the stand in law and also the other critical you know story with mr nash is this interaction that he had with mr wellman a few days before the testimony where he told mr wellman i'm going to take the th at trial and mr he thing us to him that i'd like to point out to the court is that he admitted in his testimony that the story that mr wellman gave him to tell to investigators was in his mind when he spoke to the grand jury  so on all of these we think the independent evidence in this record supports the jury and the terminations to believe the opposite of these two witnesses stories i would point out for this rule to apply of course the that independent evidence that does not in and of itself have to be sufficient otherwise this role would have no reason to apply it just has to be some degree of x turn al independent evidence and we do think that exist here and you're on resi i have ten seconds left so i will simply rest the remainder of the arguments on my brief and ask the court to affirm thank you we need to remember that there was no dispute it cloning money violates the straw contribution laws just as much as even money or any of the other categories that are covered by that statute so when the witnesses told the investigators that it was a loan or they considered it a loan or mr wellman considered a loan that's a straw contribution violation so that was known to the to the investigators that was known to the green jury it could not have made any difference because it was not each different from any other type of struck contribution scheme and which particular word in the stated violated is immaterial nd point is that if you're making a contribution to i think mr chapman if i believe i understand the point said that you want to make sure that the candidate knows where the money is coming from well there was never any secret in this case where the money was coming agents noticing the kuli or contributions into originated because the company that did not get the bid for the city hall construction believed that improper actions had taken place and they brought this to the f b i despite having made contributions on their own well in excess of those that came from the w relating to the other three witnesses the other three counts to six and eight pattern evidence may be permissible to be admitted to determine inten and rule for and for b speaks to what we don't normally allow pattern evidence to be it needed to show that an act occurred the actus reus has to be proven by independent evidence and cannot be taken from a pattern of doing other things so that's not a proper use of you know the point about the grave jury transcripts although the judge gave the prosecutor permission to introduce those if you wish to he decided not to play them to the green jury and not to send them back to the grand jury in the new green jury room so the grand jury never saw those transcripts they heard some impeachment evidence one of the witnesses in which he explain why there were differences but the grand jury never saw the other group and luged you're not talking about the grand