to support this on two broad grounds first there's no showing that he was involved in a conspiracy has he cases have required evidence to be presented to show involvement in a nine hundred fifty eight conspiracy  cases we believe make it clear that the peculiar ery element as it's called of section one hundred fifty eight is a very serious element that receives a strict construction and it is the construction it receives is that we're talking about the  rule of consideration bargain for consideration i'm in a contract sense in that sense we submit that that never happened here and we think the record is quite clear as far as m raymond trial in san francisco who carefully plotted two attempts on a life of by coming book times trial who was a gang leader in san francisco and had a coterie of what they called underlings but he was young men who had fallen under his spell under his influence child was a charismatic gangster who'd been to prison something like twenty four years in a row and child recruited these people and he did what every won it twice he sent three men to boston i arranged the telephone another man who who also went on going back on that occasion wilson family and they went to boston they volunteered to go case he testified he was the only one of the three ok she testified he volunteered men were selected and they went back there when they got there they were picked up by alan wang henchmen of kwang who took them to kwan's house kwang then you know that night or the next morning told in their mission that they were there to kill his rival bike meaning he provided them with weapons automatic weapons made sure they could fire them sent them over to do the deed and fortunately k c one of the volunteers saw a policeman at the door and he and they flew back to san francisco and that was the attempt all documented not a word of it concerned peter truong not only on his own phone he didn't talk about it the government says in its brief well he testified peter truong did that he is a lawyer told him to be said he went to a restaurant he met met up with child he met chong and he was in a restaurant once with chong and he he told chong that he was having trouble in boston with white name which we knew because he tried to kill him  y and he said truong said if he's if he's in the way you kicked him out the way the translation was are you should get rid of them the reason away and that was the only thing that ever showed dry came in he overheard them speaking to chong and saying that they almost did invite nothing but he did bite me was in a barber shop and it was inconvenient for some reason to do it at that time no discussion fact a two of them were going to go that night three hours later these two men father and son were murdered he was otherwise who had was otherwise involved with the group and he was prosecuted and convicted under one hundred fifty eight and the dollars yeah i think i i think he did i don't know i think he gave me a hundred dollars in the context of their volunteerism in other words he had already testified he volunteered for this and there's no showing that the hundred dollars was a bargain  consideration or a pretty quote quote for anything remember the case he didn't even know what he was going to boston which i think is very important and and he never testified that one hundred dollars was for commit a murder in fact when he was later asked on cross examination again and the government never approached us in his examination of any of these witnesses but when he was asked again in cross examination did you get anything from the boston press he said no unequivocally so casey never thought he was paid recruiting they volunteered the testimony is clear they did whatever he asked he did what he thought he wanted even when he didn't ask for it festa fied that he was he was the gangs in san francisco i he said i everyone walking the street was working for me so the idea that there was a bargain for element in the in the trip to boston by those three young men is ludicrous they were going because they were devoted according to trout that man to yet by moving down and get him killed i understand you may not like mr charles testimony but the wasn't that his testimony essentially yes but so we said clearly that's not credible testimony right now the government says of the jury must have believed it but it's not true because the jury had a whole lot of things they had the evidence they had the claim that was made b well didn't say he was paid for it you know and he said he got nothing for it and he got one hundred dollars it was clearly a gift why did he give you anything give me one hundred dollars that wasn't that would be a gift because there was no bargaining here circuit about the theory element of the crime and in frampton the guy was promised a favor and he was a hit man so the favor could be construed to be a favor that it would be you know you get some something of value drugs because it was and even even though ritter was paid for a pipe bomb that he made and they the court said that he was paid to make the pipe bomb and not to commit the murder that he knew it would be used for and reversed this conviction other one hundred fifty days so i think there's been a discussions with his two closest associates chong inequality there is no discussion of kill me and by the way pay the underlings a certain amount of money when they do it and we certainly can see there's nothing in that but the criminal enterprise that has structure too and at the very top is peter truong and when peter chung gives an order that order of his carried out he doesn't participate in all the details of it he doesn't say how one should go about killing bike meaning he doesn't exactly say how much money should be direction of chow so it's within that context in which you've got an organization that has a number of members structured members who are being paid for their unlawful activities whether it be long sharking detecting gambling dens or in this that order charles going to carry it out working with kong the two of them will carry it out consistent with the custom and practice of that enterprise and when they do that it's foreseeable that a natural consequence is that the underlings would be is there is proof that the question answering and i would just refer the court to volume six ten fifty eight which is the discussed and discussion of granting casey getting money but the question was and did you receive anything for th they didn't succeed oftentimes the record shows the underlings are being paid after a successful operation for instance and the leader was supposed to burn down the house that when a riot he was burned he never got his ten thousand dollars and this was unsuccessful attempt by means life when they returned they came back without having completed the job so whether or not there were they would have gotten if they had killed by i mean returns received payment there's no discussion of that whatsoever but the pattern and practice of this organisation as exemplified in the record is that when someone did a job and they successfully did it they were paid in this instance in addition to that there was money on the front side going out  orchestrated the nuts and bolts of this merger scheme no doubt about it but we've got this enterprise and we've got the leader he is the man as is the council even indicated a few words he didn't talk on the telephone he was a careful man he was a he's a shrewd man and when he gave the order he could expect it to be carried out and in this instance it did and when we're looking at the record and looking at whether or not after seven weeks of trial a pulling together the different warring factions in san francisco so this is an order that comes from peter truong to his closest associates in the concept of the expanding their authority they've already got control san francisco and there's underlings from san francisco with peter truong and raymond shall so they could get closer to the target to get closer to bike meaning when they were in boston so it's not just an isolated comment take in the context of the overall expansion of this organization it's in the context of peter chong already there's testimony having sent two individuals the boston lease kwan and  a direct order to kill by i can turn my attention to the crawford issue if i know it's not directly before the court but very briefly we would just note that the existence of organizations and then there were six cooperators who came in to testify throughout the seven weeks trial who laid out the structure of the so enterprise laid out the structure of the organization who was in charge and the government relied upon even though he did not mention under the court's direction names of people who were the head of these things he did echo the government's opening statement and we think that that was an error i believe there was a hearsay objection included within our objection to that testimony and i think it's i think it's preserved and crawford and largest upon it with respect your honor to the testimony about and i don't believe that it's clear that peter chong give an order at all i don't think you re think that i mean we can take liberties with evidence or we can read too much into but i think it's much too much to say that mr truong gave any word or at all the argument that there's an enterprise in the enterprise involved paying people for various paid he could expect something there has to be a bargain for consideration now in this case with this trip specifically to kill this victim and that was totally and utterly lack