that the state of public court made an unreasonable application of the jackson standard and the argument under d two and e is the various decision fact finding it may were clearly erroneous decision as to the first degree murders would was not just incorrect but also on reasonable under a d p a that's exactly right and this to summarize my argument would be that a full and fair reading of the record under the appropriate standards will show not only a complete lack of evidence of accomplice liability commenced this part but also that his murder convictions were reinstated as a result of the state submitting a motions that were found where he says that it is not any motion response or motion without concessions made yes i would refer the court to page four six one two of the supplemental appendix where which was the post trial motion and the court sad if i could quote you indicated to the jury and i think you had show that you are correct that there is nothing that suggests by the requisite standard that prior to the afternoon of the nineteenth he commenced a new up and agreed to assist in or conspire to commit a murder robbery or murder and the prosecutor said i agree with the court and the jury so found the prosecutor i agree with you presenting the case says there was none well let's assume that the prosecutor never said such a thing and you still have the same trial record that you have here all three members of this pan has had to do deal with dimmers under pennsylvania procedure each one of his has had to deal with with what he called motions in arrested judgment under pennsylvania procedure and i think what you have a new jersey and what was dealt with here was actually called a a judgment that that's correct even in the criminal context so we would hear those with an argument from both sides is just what the record shows an iteration of the pieces of evidence that those put supporting the elements of the charges and why they do or do not give rise to reasonable inference it would be as follows the accomplice liability statute which is what's at issue here but did the state prove the elements of that by proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires at least some act before or during the commission of the crime and then you have to go to the other now says was it done with the shared purpose and knowledge and so on there's not a single fact first of all in terms of during the crime the only testimony came in through the mouth of gina your case and the girlfriend of the shooter who described how the shooter said he single handedly committed this crime he shot the people install the cocaine he makes no mention of kaminski having been there or having any role well kno that presence at a crime presence at the scene is in and of itself not enough tell us what the evidence shows in this record simply to demonstrate presence at the scene there is no evidence done a duck course testimony that kaminski said that to her and it was from that that the court inferred one interpretation of that is that he was an eyewitness but beyond that there is no evidence of him we have present i think i do i couldn't help you know  point as he said he couldn't control what happened that's my point it is it is circumstantial evidence though that one could reasonably use to say he's there that's correct and the court now you know we have now we have a relationship between  the body you know you have all that you should do have all that however the court said that he secreted duckworth because he knew something bad was going to happen that's not enough he has he has to know more than every read into that whatever they want to with no reasonable no there has to be something in the record there has to be some evidence of a conversation he had or that he knew that his codefendant was armed or that even that they were intending to rob th deal but that the victims were going to be shot but there is also a reasonable inference that in fact is of equal  believability that competes with that other inference if there are then what's the impact of that legal then there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt is about what the supreme court said is not the rule that when you're faced with  what they said well that's not what we have here though it's not that we have that type of competing in france as we what we have this what the supreme court described in i believe the yates case where you have two equally reasonable inferences drawn in that situation the state has not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt another point i'd like to make about the jackson case is there the facts were uncontested here and there was direct evidence here the facts are sharply contested just for example the woman who supposedly had on a duckworth at her house no evidence that he did anything prior to the crime and the court has to give effect to the fact that the jury acquitted kaminski on the conspiracy charge would be impossible that much of the how much is that you seem to think it does because you have inconsistent verdicts is that the jury acquitted kaminski of the conspiracy charge meaning that there was no evidence of any agreement and so when the appellate court said there was something done by prearrangement for example drop in talk worth off or the district court said that kaminski did certain things if i come upon you in the hallway later on and you're the in the process of killing somebody and i help you do it i'm going to congress on even though we didn't discuss it ahead of time there because then there would be evidence of something that you did during the course of the crime itself which we don't have here and that could be circumstance and you don't dispute that he threatened doc where he said something bad was going to happen if you talk about what happened afterwards right i relies on a meeting that supposedly took place the evening before the murders that's what they say constitutes the conduct they say they're not going to ask the state about that believe me i would like to know just what in that meeting myself that today in this case isn't me is the troubling case and i'm not sure either side is hope there's a great deal with him going about presenting this is that it could also be a very easy case because i mean easy in in a legal sense and easy even a factual sense because as all of our questions have suggested in terms of state law this is purely about sufficiency and we're looking at it simply with the a t p a overlay now going back to the question i asked you adversary and asking you to put yourself in the position of responding to a motion chemical in fact that wouldn't take up very much space at all and that evidence from which reasonable inference is can be drawn to with the circumstantial evidence here all of the pages could be distilled into nothing but that it least for my purposes here and so at least for my purposes tell me please muster your evidence for purposes of responding to this motion to are he was there in order to get there they had to lure the detour in is a way from a public place namely the holiday inn in toms river that did that with a change in plans that last minute change in plans is crucial that  murders he was present at the scene and he knew to be present there and the reason that it was more a truck would i would ask the reporter to read the question back i believe we've been stumbling around bumping into occasionally that you much asked to be picked up by his driver york assen and eight o'clock and when he got in the car after the meeting had taken place he said they wanted to see the money bill i'll kill them before i give them any of my as my brief points out myself went reports out they got back to the boat there's four things that happened at eight o'clock on the eighteenth fourth and now you can take said jeffreys testimony about it was originally scheduled for six o'clock and just accept that like the i think the jury did or you can back into it with four things the first thing is that you know left at eight o'clock and you had a gun and no money the second thing that he who is where he left when he left the holiday left at the holiday inn his driver was told to pick him up at the holiday inn at eight o'clock and don't be late i'll be tearing it and then she saw a gun in the briefcase with no money tha duckworth says they were all together all three defendants were in each other's company at the holiday am she says at approximately six o'clock at night for her to get what you know for sure what is the evidence show what does the record show about where he was or record shows he was at the holiday inn that he was speaking with the three the two other defendants and that duckworth was not privy to their conversation he was there at six o'clock and at eight o'clock a lot of things happen all the parties on their way home were talking about how this was a bust we met where is the evidence they to means he was involved in a conversation this was a bust well what we're what i'm trying left at eight o'clock or was but at least we can say he was at a photo between and on a clock long with every everyone else who left eight o'clock was the time when everybody pretty much few minutes ago that all of them were talking about this is going to be a bust how do you get there well there's a concerted action judge everyone left at a specific time only two hours after we can infer that there was a meeting that at the holiday inn with respect to this drug deal that was supposed to have occurred now we can also infer that it was a robbery from the debt go because there was never any money and that's all directly work i mean ski heard that that would be credibly helpful but i haven't heard that yet and we're still trying to find out what in the record suggests to me and ski knew this was going to be a robbery which would then get you felony robber he said precisely that i think what he said was that i don't believe kaminski conspired i don't believe that he agreed with respect to the to the murder and the robbery but i don't think he addressed the accomplice jury but in any case your honor and a prosecutor in new jersey drop a charge without court approval not that i know of your honor no i don't think you could either think you could either i did have one i'm sorry that you think the nature of them are there as well what do we do with that this was a bizarre argument to the jury about how much of this the record of his truck and greg stepped in and greg that we talked about the murder is not complete when the murder is achieved when the person dies a murder continued that was not the murder your honor it's the robbery and the end of a robbery is a question for the jury and because it's a question for the jury they could have found that the defendants who were in constructive possession of the loot so to speak on the nineteenth and back of the lunches house when the bodies were being prepared for disposal that that  the court had asked for citations with respect to the prosecutor's closing remarks and those are at us sapan supplemental appendix four three four five four three four five right also four three two five that is during the closing and the comments during the post trial argument appear for six one one really through four six two five  appear on our revised exhibit e in the right hand column the court expressed some frustration i guess with the amount of papers that have come in and a lot of stuff is not very hopeful and when they lack useful citations to the record they're not very helpful and i've tried my best to have very precise citations to the supplemental appendix i'm not aware of here is quite simple the law is to cover it up are torturous and complex the simple truth is that there's no evidence that kaminski did anything during the homicides themselves and there's no evidence that he did anything beforehand th pieces of evidence the court referred to before the blanket not and so on all post date the crime itself and would not be relevant to an accomplice alive liability analysis the state is really basing their case and their argument today on this meeting that supposedly took place at the holiday inn the night before it's not just a meeting among the defendants they say it's a meeting with kaminsky and the two victims they make  an active participant at that meeting and they say that he deliberately lied they used were duped lured the victims to their death the next day and what i've said or i've tried to say i'll say it now and simple terms that is a complete fantasy kaminski did not meet with the victims any time on that day let alone at the holiday inn that night the evidence in the record is conclusive and irrefutable as to that donna duckworth describes the chronology  they spent that day they got up on his boat they stayed on the boat tell about five o'clock they went to the holiday inn and had drinks nothing happened there the victims were not there they went back to their boat even more to the point and i refer to the court because i think this is the most important thing that disposes of that argument by the state which is that supplemental appendix fifteen seventy eight sydney geoffrey the courier is in the holiday inn bar between six pm and eight pm when he later goes and meets the determinates at denny's and he's asked who else was in the bar and he says no one if the determine is where they're meeting with marzi you know or kaminski or anybody else he would have said that he was their friend he was there courier the deter names were not in the holiday and they did not meet with  on the eighteenth there's no proof that something more than one of them would not have gone to the whole of the him there was even that testimony which was nick had long red hair a huge beard he looked like a hippie he was afraid that if he went there he would bring the attention of law enforcement on him and they have three kilos stashed under a bed up in the third floor bedroom now i can't i just ran out of time i can't fully address this but the state's in a supplemental brief where they said that there's a waitress that identified the deter ney's as having been in the night before and to try to undercut their own witnesses claim that they determined that nick never went into the holiday inn i asked the court to take a look at her description of the people she saw there she describes the man as light brown hair no distinct facial features nick has bright red hair and a huge bright red santa claus beard