this time around here united states versus roy we can wait a bit while it appears that your argument is not drawing the same audience proves that karl rove engine mel frank agreed to murder anthony parker and then did just that and working together they shot him to death in broad daylight while he sat in his car and hard to make sure i understand record doesn't show where mr y was standing with respect to the fence the car was in between if you look on in our appendix on page twelve ninety five and twelve ninety six there's a according to i believe mr owens and mr pratt there was some sort of a verbal exchange i believe it was mr owens who testified that mr parker said i'm going to kill you or something to that effect the if in fact they had only set out to rob him but then he said is i'm going to kill you then they would have had a independent reason at that point to start shooting him but that when indicate necessarily a conspiracy to murder it was just three action one start shooting the other start shooting and kill the victim so doesn't this turn in part on whether there was sufficient information before hand to a jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy to murder you are there is certainly a view of the evidence that goes along the lines that you just described but the question on a sufficiency review is not whether this is a robbery gone bad but whether there was sufficient evidence to show that he's making murder and their point and i agree with that but my question is so  we have two guys surround the car one on one side one in the other they have an interplay with the person in the car one of the people in the by itself would be enough because that's my point so what do you have what do we have beyond that we have the testimony we have evidence showing that this organization viewed mr parker as a threat to the organization we have the organization a green beforehand that they needed to take care of this threat and we know that one of the shooters understood take care of to mean kill and how do we know that because a he did it b he also told mr owens earlier in the day i'm going to go across the street and shoot up that car which would suggest his intent was not to rob but to kill him and also on page ten forty nine of our panel conversations where of course with the with if they were right they were not but taken with all of the evidence they provide an insight into what mr frank was talking about when he said we need to take care of him on page ten forty nine of our pandemics i have we have the trial testimony of mr frank when he testified at trial was presented with and reaffirmed the statements from his plea colloquy where he of were he had pled guilty to by car murder and he said and this is the i read in the stipulation that he and roy shot and killed anthony parker because parker posed a number of risks to them and other wall street members not because there was a robbery gone bad or because there was a verbal altercation but because he was a threat and they needed to respond to that threat and then in addition to the take care of language mr roy comes to this murder bringing guns and gloves they don't bring masks these are people going to commit a murder and leave no witnesses and leave no evidence they then love to they didn't try to rob him so i'm looking a that this dude is tripping and we need to see him for that question i'm sorry you had to what answer we had to we had to take care of him pretty bunch question you had to take care answer yet we was going to attempt to rob him as well since that's what he was trying to do now take care beans murder it would be rather notion that there was an agreement to murder i don't think so i read this to mean that they planned to rob and murder him and they didn't perhaps because they got to the murder part faster than they planned you're focusing on the words as well in other words as well as well as murder which we had already agreed and which mr frank testified that was what they were there to do and i think when you take all of the other i think i can still say good morning to morning my name is chris to be i represent mr roy on appeal and just so the panel's aware i did so at the time of his trial as well this is a consolidated appeal so there's some issues that i had but to was just arguing about i think that we're being asked to consider too much based on what the government is leaving with terms with regard to the conspiracy conviction itself mr frank said what he said he said our plan was to rob him and well that's true judges no question but when taken in the context of what had what we had learned by the time he said that where there was this incident of an apparent robbery near mr royce house at some point and there was an incidence of a robbery near mr brown's house that catherine goggins hit mr brown's mother testified to those things or robberies so the as well part requires something that had never been introduced surely it matters that no effort was made to rob i mean they they picked their moment so if they would if they had any intention real intentions wrong that was the dominant purpose they would have selected an opportunity when they could effect a robbery instead they did it and they either didn't bother to rob or they were they could so it looks like they did the one thing that know they they fulfilled a major part of their mission i disagree only in as much as the mission part is the part that we were expanding what we know about what had happened and as somebody i mean i have a little bit of an advantage i was there and we met judge ordered this court room set up i'm very close to the witness nobody expected mr frank to say we're going to rob and i was sitting there waiting for him to say the plan was to kill him and he did  explain to the jurors what happened then you called roy and then what happened and i pretty much told him that anthony owens told me that mr parker was coming to pick him up and i just gave him the rundown and when you say you give him the rundown what does that mean just explain that to the jury answer that means i told him that i'm going about to come to hartford he was going to be with  question and what was it that you attempted to do at that time question well what when i seen parker in sorites when you saw all answer i was going to rob question mr parker out now he's only talking about his and he's not talking about their joint intent but of course both have to intend to have a conspiracy correctly we're going to go to them when we know about or had been discussed or even thought of through what mr frank is saying himself is a robbery that's what we're bound by there's sufficient evidence to show they conspired to rob him i don't dispute that and if we were in a connecticut state court that would be a problem for mr roy but that was not what was played by the government i case and that's not the theory that the government proceeded under the time of trial so merely because he didn't say that he merely because he said rob and he didn't say kill is a huge distinction but the government's limited by its proof there so there is no evidence to show there was agreement to murder him so let me go back to the government was sort of exceeded to my claim that what happened at the time might not be good enough but let me turn that around so let's assume for the sake of argument that the two guys come there and all they're going to do is rob and then he says the victim i'm going to murder you act and they then more or less simultaneously start shooting in a manner directed to killing him why isn't that circumstantial evidence that they formed an intent right then and there to murder when when explained the way your honor explained it i'd have a hard time telling you that you'd be wrong i think though that in the context of this particular trial with this evidence what mr parker was saying was a threat because of the nature of his relationship mr parker's relationship with the team grease members and mr roy mr frank everybody else that i don't know that that was a literal threat i don't know that that was a literal thought clearly your honor i would completely concede that something changed at some point that resulted in the shooting even and i'm admitting for the sake of this discussion that mr ward was one of the shooters but that aside i still don't know that  it's that there's a sufficient amount of evidence to go beyond the rob part merely because one of the people who claim to have seen this and not have been involved in it himself is saying that that's what mr parker said so the jury were sort of d tails into one of my topics that's separate and apart from the conspiracy thing is that mr owens testified in the government's behalf and i would submit that the jury had very little use for his testimony given the way that this trial went he was there he was an accessory to the murder at least in terms of helping mr frank it was logical to think he was the second gunman as mr frank was which is how we defended the case and i'm not asking this panel to agree with me about that and  by any stretch but the context of it goes to what your honour's asked me about i'll kill you i don't know what that means but i also don't know that we can reliably say that that's something that actually happened when we're being asked to say that more that happened than what mr frank said he was getting a steroid involved in so i think it cuts both ways i suppose ron i had maybe a silly question problems with the substantive murder conviction of the vi car conviction is the second the other count so i don't know that the conviction can stand either way so i don't want to simply concede that it's  theoretical since he's got a life sentence since i have underlying arguments about the nature of his conviction when the judges on the speaker i don't know exactly where to look the so i think that your honor i would i think you make a good point and had that been the only count and i wasn't taking issue with some of the problems that as i see them with the underlying murder conviction i suppose this would just be a nice day to spend in new york and i wouldn't be much purpose to going forward but i do have issues namely with the motive behind element behind the murder conviction which if this court were to agree would make that argument important as an independent justification it is i totally agree i hope that answers your honest question with regard to that i would ok thank you you know i have about a minute and change left i just would hope that this court would look in i know you will with a careful eye at the mode of argument that i made with regard to the substantive murder conviction in my brief the governments this isn't this typical state murder conviction is a definite motive element and i would willingly concede for the sake of this discussion i think i mean in all fairness the government at our trial did prove that there was a gang and that mr roy of unless it the government thought otherwise and i think we could speak to that he was already a member of the gang for the purposes of this proves i don't think that all men applies the problem is there's just no evidence that anybody said that that was the case mr frank specifically said he's not its leader and mr brown wasn't brought before the jury and mr howe and some of the other people mr owens that testified specifically about greece never said it was part of mr roy's obligations to the other members to performance this was something that sort of came up out of out of thin air one morning terms of mr roy's involvement and that there was never any pressure put on him it was never told to him if you do this you'll move up or you'll be promoted from within i've run out of time i don't want to cut anybody off they have any questions for me thank you thank you and it's always  i like to finish with three points first of all we've had a lot of discussion about different ways of the evidence might be viewed and different ways that it might or might not lend itself to conspiracy or whether they agreed to murder agreed to rob and respectfully that was for the on that i would like to point to something that we didn't emphasize hole in our brief but it's page ten forty nine of the appendix and this is again mr franks testimony about why he committed this murder and he actually said he frank and roy shot and killed parker because he posed a threat to them and then skipping down a bit in order to maintain their positions in the enterprise and protect the interests of the group's members and associates the defendant and roy killed parker he provided that testimony and it was actually consistent with the evidence at trial this was a group that saw mr parker is a threat they responded as a group they got together and talked about the fact that they needed to respond and then they responded as a group on the day that mr parker was killed mr frank called mr brown first and said hey come help me mr brown doesn't answer his phone so he goes to another member of the group carle wrong way picks up col roy who brings the supplies for the murder they commit the murder together and then after the murder mr royce goes to dispose the guns and he calls another member of team grease to get rid of them they responded to a threat to their territory to maintain the integrity of their jury's verdict on both counts fully accounted for mr roy's conduct and not just that he murdered mr parker but he engaged in a conspiratorial agreement to murder and the jury found that and we believe that that verdict is entitled to respect and should be reinstated thank you thank you but we will reserve decision in the case of francis versus far from board of education we'll take that on submission that's the last case on calendar please adjourn court