basing that with that we will begin with case number seventeen dash five a three to five united states versus corolla and we'll hear from mr chapman i'd like to start by telling the court that the main issues that i see on appeal that i think mandate the reversal here have to do with the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception and the admission of unduly irrelevant unduly prejudicial and irrelevant because travel in foreign commerce in the commission of murder for hire the conspiracy alleged in the indictment though is very specific in terms of it states and the court needs to keep this in mind through my arguments and when reading these briefs the conspiracy occurred or into the government between september two thousand and eight and november twenty second two thousand and eight and another important fact is that the conspiracy the object of that conspiracy alleged in the indictment was to undermine a state criminal prosecution against the appellant that is how this case was charged and that should have been the framework of the evidence presented at trial and it was not it went way beyond that let me start by talking about other act the government's theory was that a state court sexual abuse prosecution was the motivation for the appellant to commit murder for hire in this case and there's no question that the fact that state prosecution is relevant and it was necessary for the the government to prove as within the mode of exception of for all four of the however the the court allowed evidence that went way beyond the fact of the prosecution the fact that the appellant was exposed to a great deal of prison time and the fact that roosts a great of one of the victims was a critical witness in that case which is strange because during jury selection the court actually notified or indicated its intent to limit that evidence and it's when it stated  only the fact that it was filed and not going to get into details only the fact that there was a pending sexual assault case against mr a lasco not that we're going to get into the details of what what was involved despite that a tremendous amount of evidence that was irrelevant and prejudicial was put before the jury on this issue the government actually called the prosecutor's the state court pro testified she essentially valid for the credibility of the state court prosecution by saying that she had reviewed and screened over ten thousand cases the implication was therefore they must have had a good case against mr veloce kill she also talked about how she was reluctant to dismiss the case after russa great a was was killed thirteen documents from the sexual assault docket were admitted a copy of the indictment was read to the jury this goes way beyond judge briona says very reasonable initial ruling that the only only the fact of the case which would come into evidence to make matters worse  you was aware that the defendant had sexually abused the victim then he asked him a question about shortly after it the sexual offense happened he was allowed to say that ruth sic raido was accusing mr veloce koger role of raping his her four year old daughter and again i understand that the government needed to bring in the existence of this prosecution but it should have been clearly looking at a significant amount of prison time if he was convicted in this case and exact amount of years and that would have been sufficient we didn't need to get into this prejudicial evidence that in an in a case that's ugly enough as it is to essentially paint the picture of my client as a sexual child abuse  in addition to the horrendous charges he was already charged with that was completely gratuitous and unnecessary and the government's counsel sort of dropped it in the government's theory of the case the existence that prior prosecution it's just that the prosecution went way beyond judge briones is limiting instruction basically he said we're just going to offer evidence of the existence of the sexual assault case we're not going to get into any more details than that and then they did over and over again and those details really had nothing to do with this case all the jury needed to hear was about the framework of that prosecution and the exposure by mr role to it and that's my that's my concern and i don't see how the when hearing that apparently mr paluska role is also a sexual child usually or in addition to the fundamental charges he was charged with i don't see how you can get a fair trial under those circumstances it was so prejudicial i mean when you say that you agree though that the fact of the prosecution should have been allowed and of course though it would have included the allegations or would have been right that he was a sexual abuser before he was a child it would have included what judge briona said the fact of a sexual assault and that she was a key witness but getting into details beyond that i don't think and has not it's not intrinsic to this accident you know allegedly indictment indictment alleges a conspiracy to kill in a foreign country this has to do with admitted in this case other another other act that was admitted that was was incredibly prejudicial irrelevant was  and nine after the completion of the conspiracy in a one garcia's murder was improperly a minute there wasn't there didn't seem to be any beyond and they actually called a forensic pathologist to say how he died it was execution style entry of all kinds this is all after the conspiracies over and i guess the implication although there was references to sexual saw sometimes the prosecutor didn't say way just shot but most of the time to get most of them she said alleged sexual assault charge sexual assault a couple times says you're going to murder francisco to spark money from the safe use and you if if everything goes right i'm going to  kidnapping that was the were were successful in order not only that the the testimony was that the money from the safe paid for all of the kidnapping  it's as it's developed in the evidence that payment for the murders is an object of the conspiracy and it's within two weeks of the end the but they went further by using the magic word to death and that's pretty darn our avert then and at worst for you it's harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt  there's overwhelming evidence of that element then it could be harm's way and here there's all kinds of acts including the murders of showing the victim the photographs the installation the last workings and they were all conspiracy and so my concern is the jury receiving those instructions leaving at some lesser level of proof was required ok so here in other words this crime you must find that the government has proven each of the fine beyond reasonable doubt one two three and four that the death of r and b resulted in so i may have different initials on each one and that's page twenty six of the of the charge so i didn't i didn't try this but the trouble comes but it's that that's a good point i was applying the wrong standard but it's more favorable to you and i still think you're having trouble telling me why it wasn't met as a trial or all i can tell you is that which i primarily am in my view if you give a jury instructions on seven conspiracy counts and you tell them you used the term overt act in the instructions on three of them but not the other four that's going to create confusion in this understand