martin and dobbs and they were extradited and subsequently tried in phoenix we acknowledge that circumstantial evidence can be used to prove the agreement went to the suburban and then returned there was no testimony of you know any like handing off of that money proof was my client would have given dobson the money at that point in could be drawn that martin was giving instructions but as i stated earlier there are no tape recorded conversations indicating what was happening there business partners he could have s two he never knew that there was cocaine in the bag or that this was to be a cocaine transaction he didn't have to know it was cocaine he would have to know that it was some illegal drugs now right if someone thinks that's some other kind of contraband or something innocent that can be a reasonable explanation and but the government doesn't make the jump to say this is drugs well it has as mr dobs that that is the standard by first of all although the agent testified that excuse me that the word shit might be a word that could stand in for dr or other some sort of contraband jewels something like that and that was the same reasoning that was in there i doubt a case what if you look at the other stuff first of all merest cases where there was an agent who testified that drug there was a lot of testimony by agencies about what drug dealers do and that was considered by the jury merest case there was testimony about an individual who was supposedly doing counter surveillance and there was testimony by the agent who says well drug dealers do counter surveillance and the court use that spotlight the cases regarding conspiracy i think they can be summarized into four categories there's cases regarding cannister vaillant's there's cases regarding relationship there's cases regarding knowledge and there's cases regarding corrugated activity and when the court does their wayne those are basically the four categories that are looked at and first of all mr dobson stops for the police shows no knowledge dobson doesn't do any counter surveillance there's a vehicle in the shoney's parking lot that is the suburban which is rabbit whoever rabbit maybe that is apparently doing  thousand dollars i think that can demonstrate from a similar to the case that he might be dealing in some sort of other contraband he's there with nine thousand dollars first and second thing is the courier fee was fifteen thousand dollars so he was good morning my name is david brown the assistant u s attorney from the district of arizona i was one of the trial prosecutors in connection with this case there were a couple of statements that were made that i believe were are inconsistent with what the evidence prove trial you know when i go through the facts i would like to i will point those out this typically start out mr verdugo the confidential source didn't set up this deal he learned that mr boyle and i had ten is actually my the agents in nashville suggested to the phoenix agency that that's where they should complete the transaction and there was out there was a little confusion over the telephone calls at that point on november eighteenth two thousand and one agent called her own calls and speaks to one line says i'll be in nashville on november nineteenth that's when i'm ready to deliver the cocaine so now we know that the cocaine will be arriving on nov nineteenth the agent then on november nineteenth calls again and speaks of well known this is not there there was a little confusion as to whether dobson was phone because you're speaking to the agent cell phone and he dials a number the number he dials was the phone number that was found in mr martin's the goal at the time of his arrest the same phone that was only unlocked by using the as a rabbit since one thousand nine hundred three that at the time of his arrest he was asked after his mirandized do some people call you rabbit or fat rabbit his answer was yes so he even admitted in my meeting so he gets relayed through well now you're meeting a black male driving of black heart wearing black clothing so the agent goes into the restaurant what's the logic will in france of the fact that there  knew they were going to be meeting mr as you called around pick up the cocaine at that point in time they already had met and decided that mr johnston was going to be the person to go to the restaurant that mr dobson would make contact with the agent the agent goes inside and and mr dawson appears when he walks in the restaurant and he tells the agent rabbits nearby he has your money and he tries to get the agent to leave the agent's not going to leave for surveillance and all the security is around felonies he's not going to go to an unknown location the agent tells mr dobson i'm not going to leave i don't want to do the deal in the restaurant convince the agent to leave the agent says i'm staying here what is the evidence showing that's the tops and leaves the restaurant he comes back the short time later and he is on a cell phone and it's the same cell phone he walks into the restaurant he answers the phone to the agent and mr boyle is on the phone agent has a conversation with mr while not during this conversation mr ball most trying to get him to leave the restaurant the agents and i'm not if you goodman didn't get a look at that driver is it that time that they came around the the chicos what happens there was a photo lineup right there was a photo lineup with agent bagot who was also in that same parking lot but a little closer to  leaving so what happens is dobson the restaurant walks out of the restaurant and he doesn't see martin right away why because agent baggett testifies that martin now is doing she runs he's going all t different parking lots in or not a parking lots around the buildings and he's looking in the can testify that it was an obvious attempt to conduct what he called heat runs or to look for police surveillance and in fact during one of these encounters as he was driving through the parking lot where mr agent bennett was the agent was turned to the side he turned around and just as martin was pulling right in front of this vehicle martin slows lo the participant here so babson doesn't see martin he goes back in the restaurant he hands the phone to the agent again and it's the evidence show it's all one call and he never terminates that call and upsetting his customers and there's nothing to be afraid of he knew these guys everything was ok they were ok and there was no problem with them well we have well known in arizona vouching those guys mr dobson or mr martin the only two people who were involved in this transaction so we have a stream coronated effort between all the parties we have calls being placed between between during the course of this event call to that phone that dobson had and mr in it's from wellness phone again and then dobson gets up and leads so there's more communication more than just that one phone call there were at least two calls between wallace phone and the phone that three calls between go on his phone and phone that dotson was using what does he do well first of all at the very beginning he tells the agent that rabbit has the money and he's nearby he agent he doesn't have the money that rabbit has it what does he do then after that fourth meeting he goes in the eats with rabbit at a gas station behind the shoney's he gets in the car they see the cellphones passing off the  hand the cell phone it would have been the phone would have been martin's telephone and he then gets out of the car goes to his car and drives up to where the agents vehicle is parked at that point the agent comes out mr dobson sitting in there in the car in the transcripts prove it out but he's holding the answer bottles with the u s currency the agent during that encounter says do you have my fifteen large for me his responses i've been down it i don't know what this any knowledge of the bag or anything to know anything about it he said which was a lie because he just picked up the bag he knew about the bag he just got it from the agent but he just denies everything at that point in time you have  martin following you know almost like security role following that right past where the stop was looping off at the next exit to go back around the scene and it's at that point that agent goodman and it's a good view of mr martin the eagle and makes a positive of mr martin so what we have we have some red herrings thrown out we have the use of the word on winning and the agent did use the word on winning after the very first meeting the very first brief meeting expecting to meet rev it but he used to use the word and witty and used it twice during that conversation over the radio after the first meeting contrary to what fans council claims he never used the word on winning again evidence we have the whole set of cases that they basically have extreme coordinated conduct between all three individuals to pick up or purportedly twenty kilograms of cocaine well it wasn't really my guy or you just didn't show he was connected or not or at the understood options behalf he was just an unwitting did well his actions betray that his action demonstrate that he had knowledge of what was occurring that he acted with the intent to complete this defense and he was using we believe acting on mr martin's behalf you have the family relationship here believe that all of that together shows that there was that not enough evidence to demonstrate specific knowledge how do you how do you view us i doubt will obviously that's not a lot of our circuit of assuming that we were to adopt  their joint their common communication supports the fact that they were they had the knowledge that this was a cocaine conspiracy and the intent to accomplish it you for the questions even based on the argument given by the government today the only thing we have gotten doing is coming to the agent and saying come outside and then he comes a cell phone delivery person delivering the cell phone from the suburban and to the agent and he is not part of the transaction there is in the transcript that was submitted by the government i wanted to clarify something that transcript doesn't everything is over and we only have we have a portion of the transcript and that was one of the reasons why we ask that the court review the videotapes and audiotapes to make sure that everything was included in there and one of the  many cases which demonstrates that the cases where the court reversed says those are the types of that's the type of evidence that the court looks at and in fact there's