this case and since we're splitting the time i'm going to focus my arguments on the section one thousand seven hundred and two arguments join a christianson who is representing as one sleep will focus on the conspiracy and robbery charges although either one of us are able to address any question you have on any part of the case they said in my brief we are arguing that even assuming that every single fact that the government approved a trial is true there's still the conduct involved does not reach the statute not a violation of section seventy no chip and i think one of the main reasons is we rely on the griego case which involves fictitious letter c s in that case the court held that if you have a fictitious address street address see you can violate section seventeen o two and i think it's important to point out that section seventeen o two is a mail privacy statu it's designed to keep people's mail cravat so that people can write to each other without worrying that somebody would open their letter up copy it read it whatever even put it back into the stream though i think it can be objective in as much as that in this case we know exactly who the packages were directed to oh ok well it's subject to the times of difference the difference between the way the packages addressed and the subjective intent of the sender yes and this is not likely do you think the prosecution is required under seventeen o t to call the sender to testify that i intended the mail to be delivered as addressed if there was a question as to that i would agree i would say yes well it is a part of the burden on the government as you view it to call the sender to testify yes i intended the package or maybe a letter to be delivered as i addressed it yes because the sender is the one person who knows when and where you know wildly impractical requirements given the very strong presumptions and regulations that mail should simply be delivered as addressed that is true i think this case is unusual in that in this case we know who the sender was and how they intended this does this unusual case change the burden of proof on the prosecution in all cases under seventeen o two to require proof of the senator's intent over and above the address i think it can i think you judge that is a very good question when i st looked at this file i thought there was nothing there and service of it it seems as if yes you have an address see didn't get to that person this violates the statute the more i look at it at the case law and the purpose of the statute the want to became convinced that mr jones did not violate the statute in trial was that the packages were supposed to go to mr smith or one of his associates and that's where all the packages went to language to whom it is directed that is the question is how do you determine that and addressee is one way actual proof knowledge that it's going to somebody else is another way both during the scene and prior to the scheme because he was a friend and she had was taking care of some relatives children and he did some money so the purpose of the crew the quid pro quo is not their government receive anywhere between fifty dollars to one hundred dollars in cash payment and on redirect the jones paid her cash to quote do all this is that not sufficient for a jury to infer  following directions of her supervisor which she believed she had to do so to herself that what she was doing was wrong is not right under the postal regulations she certainly admitted that yeah and and i think that she knew that she was violating postal code you know the government proved at great length that this was in violation of postal code but also there was testimony that this sort of thing happened in real life occasionally and i think to the seventeen o two argument is that things are supposed to go to whom they're addressed but we all know through our personal experience that things don't exactly go that way and can be missed a lever and it happens so i think that she was how many behind the criminal statutes require knowing action right right right and certainly in this case the lack of the direct association with  stronger association and also that it be corruptly i think is where the government's case falters regarding the conspiracy charge under three somebody one the issue in this case is whether she was actually part of that agreement there was clearly a conspiratorial agreement between jones and smith and there's evidence that ms wensley knew about that agreement and knew at least something was going on because she knew she was violating the about this agreement that he had and that she doesn't seem overly concerned when things don't go the way the conspiracy is intended to go oh well that's just chalk it up to the game it sounds like she's just basically humoring him discussing what he's doing so and again before i go into my rebuttal time i argued that she was not guilty of the theft of mail counts one was dismissed and one was held not guilty by the jury and then she also is questionably not guilty of the seventeen o two counts with which mr examples has argued so i neglected to make that connection in my brief that it was a dual conspiracy and there is a lack of evidence as to improperly instructed the jury the jury was required to far and the defendants took out of the mayo or other post office correspondence or packages that before they had been delivered to whom they were directed now the question that the jury was required to decide in this case was what did that mean to whom the packages were directed the government introduced testimony from addressed that only makes sense it only makes sense that the postal service would run on an objective basis and determine the intended recipient of correspondence from the directions written by the send you're on the packets but i just ask you what happens under seventeen o two if a letter carrier who is familiar with the route in the residen recognizes an obvious for example transposition of numbers in a street address and delivers an essence as she is confident the sender would have wanted even though it's not exactly as address i think there would not be a violation because seventeen o two requires an intent to obstruct correspondence and the jury here was instructed on the same thing that good faith the jury was properly instructed there is plentiful evidence to conclude that for the jury to conclude that defendants took a course took his packages out of the mail and delivered them to smith or smith associates and not to be had received some packages in fact the ed receipts had been given to smith or smith's colleagues in los angeles or california were in violation of the parser regulations jones evidenced a guilty conscience when he alerted us to for example he alerted smith to the existence of  surveillance catwalks at the tinsley park postals push office when he referenced law enforcement when one of the packages went missing he said well if it you know if they knew what was in it would turn up as law enforcement once lee admitted that she knew that she had done something incorrect so to jones and it's rather evidenced by the fact that the he payment that was evidenced very clearly in the text messages for example between smith and jones where jones and smith made it very clear that if if jones wanted to get paid by smith he had to go get the packages jones also made it clear in his interview with the postal inspectors when he laid out how the scheme went he said well this guy's got a best evidenced in couple of text messages between jones and smith in which jones tells c n n that he intends to go pick up a package during the course of the conspiracy there is properly admitted against morrison as showing the quid pro quo nature of his fears was that ground for admissions pacifically addressed i haven't seen that part of the transcript yet  i don't recall i would think you'd be on a lot more solid ground relying on evidence about ones like yourself yeah i agree and  agreement to violate her torso duties for duties as opposed to employ in return for the money that d she received from joe certainly the jury was entitled to conclude that given the entire to smith basically in order to evade or is lying to the radar of law enforcement or to them can i ask you what you think we ought to do with the grieco case from the southern district of new york in the fictitious addresses under seventeen o two yeah well through i mean this is the sixty year old case from a district court in another sort which i don't think has a whole lot of application here for one thing in the great bookcase the distinguish grieco on that basis but affirm these convictions what we be telling potential defendants is just make sure you use false names for real addresses right well it sounds like a very satisfactory to jason smith's address with a peeper in the package jason smith takes it out behalf of the fictitious person and then later that beeper goes off showing that somebody has opened the package it may be  mr santos d to whom this package was directed it was not for me i don't know the guy in california and i never received it is also testimony from i believe  that really did go through the mail that really was accompanied by false and phony entries made by jones and who honestly instead postal system the postal information system about what had happened to the packages and instead of following the regular course of delivery is required to do they both jaybird the packages and if you just never see this associates in return for admission that my client or ms wisely were wrong as to coastal regulations the postal regulations are not part of the statute they can't be too strapped into the statute i'd like to talk about the grito case because i think that that's a very interesting case involved mail that was just as real as any other there's i don't know there's any requirement that the letter envelope or a box have anything in particular in it to qualify it as mail it dresses envelope put money in it put it in the stream it got to the hotel so one thing i would note is the case that the united states submitted yesterday afternoon united states versus  circuit it's unpublished opinions from another circuit involving a different issue but discusses the grieco case in depth in particular at the end of section to a last full paragraph discussing it shows that the case still is viable as persuasive authority and they would like to conclude that there was no obstruction of mail mr santos these other people were never expecting any mail the people who were expecting the mail all received it and therefore i do not see that there can be a here i don't think it's the controlling factor that it's certainly an indication that these packages could probably not be delivered following post office regulations the address is right but the name is not so you know what what what is supposed to happen there and where is the crime if someone does deliver either to the person which is intended which the statute addresses or delivers to the address in which it's a i think it's not necessarily a subjective test and in this case of course the sender's did not testify but the government certainly put on evidence that the intent of the sounders was that these packages go to smith and i don't think there was anybody who