regards to the existence of just one conspiracy and of course the denial of the motion for a new trial as well and are going to course that by the introduction of all of this information regarding numerous conspiracies or excuse me presenting it as one conspiracy that really infected her substantial right as related to not just the conspiracy charge but all the charges that were before the court and that this  dmission of or this the core allowing to go forward on the theory of one conspiracy exaggerate it was exaggerated by the courts admission of the floral for be evidence in the case the scheme a i'm sure you all picked up was generated by mr haggerty who is the marketing manager of the casino he was assisted by other individuals who worked at the casino and courier in approximately four others i read their names who are  continuing is being used to bring other people to the casino to be winners the snotty overly complicated no no i think he did find yeah i mean basically the other thing that's people so we kind of have the whole nine yards there at why doesn't that testimony sustain the notion that we don't have just a single one off transaction well you know difficult even for lawyers to make heads or tails of those conspiracies trying to define what a conspiracy has let alone you know lay people on a jury as they try to discern the cerne through these instructions  you know it takes two or more people to steal these casino funds that you're a member of a conspiracy you have to know and intend to accomplish it's all of the objectives and  d you know then we go on to say that you can directly conspire with just one of these conspirators and it can make you a coconspirator and if your goal ends up being the same goal as others then potentially you can be you know a member of this right or a larger conspiracy but in reality you know it can become much more complicated than that in this is i think more now by the cases that we cited to the court and could take us and  i'm pronouncing that correctly and chandler these cases because they talk about the spokes in the in the wheel and the and all this in the core so you can have the same goal to steal like they did in those cases you can steal understanding all the language in the conspiracy cases as well but if i understand the supreme court case and caught the opposite whatever there were it was there were multiple conspiracies involving different people in this case as i understand it and i mean it's it's a little difficult to understand but in this case it was a saint people all the time that were involved it was  multiple times well i would agree that the core group of people were the same in the sense that there was the originator of the plan and his immediate cohorts had worked at the casino and then they from there find people to recruit these other people to be winners and i would suggest that at that point this is where we start creating the spokes we have you know assortment of i don't count exactly how many other people but if you have a core group of about and we have forty two indicted that would leave some thirty six other people i suppose and then maybe a couple mid level people to two or three people to recruit who started to create these folks were i would argue these other people there the thinking and so it's not like an independent thing where she goes out and recruits one person and that's the end of it she's also turning over the money to dealing with garcia she herself gets set up to win money so it's hard to in regards to that offended and whether or not she was part of just one conspiracy you know they did it all these other individuals so you must of done it they knew so you must have known it seems like there's just so many people so many different use of introducing basically another conspiracy of a and charged crime in a separate occasion that again i would argue is clearly admitted for conformity evidence but i don't know in regards to this first incident with the hot seat that there was any substantive evidence presented that she was a knowing member of a conspiracy at that time and so ultimately we end with you know a she won once before so she must have been guilty of that and we're here on these charges so she must be guilty of this and that the cumulative effect of all of this this morning is that it left her in a situation where she did not receive a fair trial and i thank you very much for your attention this morning thank  would require this court to look at the evidence in the light most favorable that to the government and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt and in this case  the government indicted on a single conspiracy and that single conspiracy was not grand that single conspiracy was to steal more than a thousand dollars from legends casino and  the defendant in this case before or talking about other people that she drew into the conspiracy before talking about people that she was certainly privy to she herself stole more than a thousand dollars  from legends casino and the reason why of the government's admits that matters is because in order to even in order to even cause a multiple and spirit conspiracies instruction to be given in order to generate the the need for the instruction defendant has to point to some evidence of separate agreements and purposes and the government and i would cite to term palma for that premise and the  government notes that in this case the district court in an abundance of caution gave the instruction a multiple conspiracies though even in her briefing to this court defendant never identifies who was a part of her separate conspiracy or what separate purpose was that was different than the conspiracy to steal a thousand dollars from legends casino in fact some of the case law from the circuit to include united instruction is contained at a supplemental excerpt of record one seventeen and i believe that it is the the sort of standard or bench book instruction for multiple conspiracies  and i and i apologize if i'm incorrect about this but i believe actually in the model instructions it notes that if that instruction is given no additional instruction need be given as to multiple conspiracies and i apologize if i'm wrong about that i'm pretty confident that's that's i also don't know how to pronounce it but those that those cases deal with situations where in multiples and conspiracies instruction was not given and the parties are arguing whether or not there was prejudice in this case the multiple instructions instruct excuse me multiple conspiracies instruction was given and the reason why that matters so much is because that was number eight for your instruction eighteen your honor i didn't write down the name of the number of the juror ones that went as you are one seventeen yes yes yes thank you because multiple conspiracies is not a question of law is a question of fact and the this question of fact went to the fact finder in this case and there is no allegation of instructional error before the court the fact finders were instructed a conspiracy i says if you find that the conspiracy charge did not exist then you must return a not guilty verdict even though you may find that some other conspiracy existed similarly if you find that any defendant was not a member of the charged conspiracy then you must evidence a year prior to trial the defense were given very ample notice of the hot seat your honor i would also note for the court that the government proposed this not only is for a four b evidence but consequence in that the government was required to show the intent to steal and the government was required to show an agreement to steal our knowledge of the conspiracy the government cited to smith and jackson to show that for a for b has been utilized in similar argue that they were an unknowing moper stooge in these situations might may not have known what the even though there would have been a conspiracy they may not have known their role in it but if it happened more than once then those things would certainly be less likely so the government argued for a for b that it was an element of consequence that these these earlier drawings were rigged in the same manner by the same people at the same location and the hot sea drawings ended one month prior to the anniversary drawings beginning so they were very very close in time indeed of the four defendants that proceeded to trial three of them had one hot seat promotions and multiple people testified at trial about the hot seat promotions being rigged by the same people in the same manner and utilizing and this is important utilizing the same winners and and fact one person and this is where it does start to look also like an extra complainer twined because the government did call two people for whom without this evidence their testimony may not of made sense the government call curtis crowder was a cooperate or who explain d that when he came back to win an anniversary drawing he already knew what to do because he had won a hot seat and he explained that when he was in the hot seat promotion ricardo garcia had approached him and had told him you need to get a player's current which is a prerequisite to getting into any of these drawings need to get a player's club card you'll see it here when your name is called you'll collect the money parking lot you know give me part of the money back i'll have kicked part of it back to people inside the casino and he explained then when the anniversary drawing happened it was the exact same thing additionally i mean a prieto testimony was very important to the government explained that when she went back out to meet m and nothing had happened and that was a hot seat that she had won so again that would not have made sense without the sevenths the government does believe that was an extra complainer twined but the government also does believe that it qualifies as for a for be under any the instruction does that but was there did the defendant argue that that the conspiracy charge was not proved yes other so this permitted the multiple conspiracy