please proceed may please the court counsel judge as i want to thank you for the opportunity to address this or oral arguments and provide some additional information that  when you are reading the briefs which i believe are well proved mr charged with conspiracy on november th twenty teen he had for continuances and myself and opposing counsel were on our last day of trial on the markets meth case when i was asked if i could do a trial in ten days mr eriksson's prior attorney was unavailable medically for the next thirty days and i agreed to take that trial and myself and mr cooke agreed to of work for a clean getting the discovery to get to trial which was ten days later but it was actually one work week later mr erickson would not sign an additional continuance as he had four and his last continue once that was filed let's allege to him to be forged in a review of the jail records would appear to indicate that he has not met with anybody to spy that so he was insistent on going to trial we proceeded to trial nov th of two thousand and nineteen and the primary witness was a lady by the name of marcy to connor's this conner's was sentenced during our trial in a separate hearing to three hundred months and was cooperating and was the primary witness of the conspiracy the difficulty arose after the trial and the fact that the opposing counsel realized that there were two audio recordings of the conference i received for those above two weeks after the trial and i filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal noting that we have received these and they were substantially different than the summaries that we have been provided those differences are outlin were an hour and twenty one minutes and forty five minutes long the summaries that were provided to us were extremely pro prosecution and left most of the important details and the judge ruled that  we hadn't met burton for a new trial well preparing for sentencing i begin to believe that my contact with my client was being monitored by law enforcement and so i met with my client on february and nineteen in the jail and told him that i would be sending him a fake e mail and in that e mail i would say i would be indicating to him that i've actually found the additional audio record house counsel to tell us what this was all in the information that was provided in the last e mail or in the last audio recording provides a sufficient basis for mr erickson to get a new trial the fact of the matter is that there is a culmination we have the issue of provided an opportunity to effectively cross examine the witness and that's why he asked for that on the nd issue of the jury i think this let me jump to that seems to me was pretty important never once mentioned any of her relatives during her deep breathe she blamed a lot of are attributed a lot of her drug dealing to her relatives but those demand up in the report and at trial she didn't hundred gram conspiracy and if you remove those if you remove those transactions you remove the total amount of drugs that's required as an element of the offense and  the all of the testimony appears to agree that my client did not happen agreement with marcy to connors and the evidence of that is that he had nothing he had not a dime not a car not of nothing absolutely nothing and the explanation that she was dealing through her relatives but but her if she's also dealing with eric's and she's dealing with you know so she's  if you testify that my client distributed the drugs but it was actually your errant he clearly i mean st what you have incredible credibility problems she didn't testify to that during the trial at all let's to the belief that the conspiracy was with her aunt and not with my client that's incredibly exculpatory information in my opinion additionally we had very little ability to hurt her testimony was wandering and meandering and without the audio recordings many of these recordings happened  she was picked up you don't get the information on what she sounded like i believe that in the st recording she was actually picked up while she was hack and that leads to a lot of credibility issues there so is it two of the three recordings were noted in the summary you got that the summary said there is a recording on two of the three right correct but we we suspected her i knew that there was actually four recordings we just couldn't prove it until i sometimes fake email and then law enforcement who was watching my emails read my email at the nz contact that the prosecutor said oh yeah and the only time they came forward with that was when i said hey i found i've got a copy of this recording and that's when they came forward and said mr cooke oh by the way we have this record so i mean we we knew of it from other people in the jail we knew it existed be just couldn't prove it and it's an extremely unusual case when somebody is monitoring conversations with counsel posts trial so there is i mean some some very interesting things what i think is most important this case may be the jury issue that like to go to that  can i ask ok this just out of the gate with you since you don't have a whole lot of time what what are you seeking what relief are you seeking as a result of what you're saying is you're saying that for a motion for a new trial but are you are you  asserting that there should have been at it a different or additional proceed to ensure a fair cross section the jury or are you just asking a motion for a new trial based on a change of venue to someplace new what's the basis of your motion when i did myself and well let me back up i did three trials in the score in the course of about three months of this district the same  panel and what i became aware of was that you couldn't get a fair jury for any of the native american defendants because they knew the people that knew of the instances and we were essentially getting the same jurors who come from towns that have residential actresses st francis eagle butte but we wouldn't get those from those people that require post office boxes because they're not registered voters and when you're not a registered voter you're not mature so we had a difficult time in drugs lanka's an amazing job of attempting to keep native americans on the jury and these people were family members these people i mean it was very very difficult after three trial got to the conclusion of that we'll never get a fair trial for my clients because of such an isolated in remote areas that everybody knows him everybody knows his family and all the process was one about the other three reservations i thought there were four of them that there is this but essentially e rose bud and pine ridge are essentially connected there seems were all area between those but there's so much intertribal between the zones and people who have family members that live in each reservation so when we c hear so i guess i kind of kind of want to get to what your what what relief you're seeking and i'm not i understand an issue and i understand the problem and i agree that judge lying did a very thorough job and in trying to address that concern but what are you think any i don't think it would change the fundamental problem that we have here based on the the rural nature and the fact that in the water there are these people the everybody knows everybody and everybody knows what happened to council let me ask you th wayne case has a ten percent threshold that you probably know about correct here the disparity difference is seven four and isn't that a very high hill created a lot if but when you combine it with the fact that we can't get a fair your due to this very unique role nature in the fact that this is a very small area with large families that are all related you end up with this kind of unique action where you're never going to be able to get native americans in practice  the juries are extremely rare you have to take extreme efforts to do that and three trials in a row you get the idea pretty quickly just when i love motion for a change of venue i didn't at the time  each time that we would get the jury pool i would see a lot of native americans and then i did do a little motion with the judge afterwards and said after the why here it's that we can't get a fair trial here and i didn't know i guess we don't know what to do at that point because he was attempting to keep people on he was doing extraordinary things to keep native americans on but we just couldn't do it so it isn't exactly a pass and challenge but we did have a hearing following it afterwards what is apparent though is in reviewing the jurors is that it's only people with presidential address as or people who prior to the twenty supreme court case where the suspect on the motor voter bill who had been registered post office has but we just have a very distinct lack of people in these towns that don't have street addresses and that's that's very apparent and looking at this so i you know the if you go to the a b a web site one of the main pages on the a p web site is talking about how the native american vote is being suppressed and we have the two thousand and nineteen native american voting act that got struck down but there isn't anybody including the a b a that doesn't think this is a serious issue and it's a serious issue for registering voters and it's a serious errors that needs to be addressed so that he can have a cross section else gives here and the last thing i want to talk about his mistress while the mistress while he was called to testify of one of the last days of trial and he was arrested and he's a homeless meth addict from the same town as my client he was brought in to have you had a nd so i'll ask you the punchline on that when to give you a chance which is voice competency of witnesses where the judge states on the record the judge's view is there a case anywhere that overcomes that no but you know fairness is a perception of the public and when all of these people see a homeless meth addict appear and testify in court you know the original case of fairness is from six hundred and seventy nine was where the judge where the judge declared the trial be fair because both sides could talk you know fairness is a fundamental thing and i think if you look at those it's just simply not fair to allow that's so i think that they some pressed and mr cook i do have a question about that nd step the absolute disparity calculation you've got the one number being the percentage of the group in the end of the population general court court there what document it is it's in the brief but so there again i understand it and sorry i'll just get it maybe i didn't make my i didn't post my question clearly enough and i understand that in this case then the nd number was based on this particular the new year but it seems like in some of the case law there is a suggestion that nd number is from a bigger pool the master wheel of the neos or even over a six month period mentions there are four distinct reservations in the district in the central division of the district south dakota this case involved almost entirely and individuals on the road but to enter the nation there are three others to drop drop from the government about the motion for a change of venue are you saying that there was no such request no such request or most was made by the i think that would be the proper remedy if you're concerned about your reputation which seems to be the the