good morning you're honest and i was david miller the attorney on behalf of mismanaging carr we're here today to talk about two things i think are primary in this particular case  notice of this in writing however i'm not sure if if you have that or not before you the national association of criminal defense lawyers has filed a brief on behalf of mr joe hall in that particular case i believe the issues are related very closely to this case as he was basically a codefendant in these cases and one of the fifteen that was arrested so i believe that the court should perhaps consider  moving on to the case your honor in this particular matter mr carr was before the eastern district in washington prior to trial her and her attorney moved to court an order of severance they continued to bring up the matter of severance up by thinking to the point of trial and even throughout the trial i'm trying to get her case severed from there you the remainder her husband in this particular case and mr singh scratch a little bit of the history in this miss carr came to this country i believe she was a sikh and her and her then husband purchased a convenience store in spokane washington and they ran it for a good deal of time her husband then passed away from natural causes and ms car continued on with the business by herself she later married mr singh however w also a codefendant in her case however prior to her being arrested and taken before the eastern district mr singh was reported to have pointed a gun at her there was some domestic violence involved in her marriage and in fact mr singh and moved out of their family residence and was living on his own we believe that that isn't courtney issue to bring up because it demonstrates that there is some animosity between some of the defendants that were lumped together before the court and we believe that was improper the court should also note that mr karr in fact did not sell any of the pseudoephedrine to any of the confidential informants or into the undercover agents informing them that they should be careful in the quantities of cold medications sold to a person however mr karr denies ever reading it she does state that she did see the note on the outside of the employ of the course should be aware that not speak english very well and certainly does not read english probably at all and i think that was pointed out at trial she's an immigrant and she has a difficult time understanding the english language and certainly our our our culture also pointing out about her culture i think it's important to note that as a married woman in the community that she was brought up in and that she was to do as told by her husband and it's our contention that that is another reason why the case should have been severed because the husband in this case slash employee i was telling individuals first of all that he own part of the store and second of all he was the only one who had allowed someone to purchase large quantities of pseudoephedrine through that particular store and i'll move on to the jury instructions your honor because i want to research from time to remain and watch the court has me for the questions about the severance the the defense wish to have eight jury instruction that talk about looking through the lens of the person charged i believe this and this was some of the language used in it however the government got through their jury instruction to talk about having reasonable ability to believe that that the pseudoephedrine that was sold would be used to manufacture methamphetamine but the government never demonstrated that in fact this car knew what methamphetamine was or to how to manufacture in fact the government had to put on its own expert to demonstrate to the jury on how to manufacture methamphetamine through this certain process it uses cold medication also remember there are no restrictions in the united states handed down by congress or the courts as to how many packages of pseudoephedrine can be sold at any one time to any one person there's not a lot there it's kind of a reasonable standard that's put that puts forth now to kind of reverse this imagine for a moment if you would that the court we moved to india and there is a certain product that is legal to sell there it's perfectly legal to sell but that product can be used to say manufacture something illegal and we've never been exposed to that illegal product in our lives and we don't know necessarily that selling a big  it is your honor but it also goes to looking through the lens of the person charged i think that is what is important aspect which iran or you have to realize that the culture that this person was brought up  in she she was trying to follow the rules she was trying to follow the laws she's trying to follow laws or culture and and and customs there and she's also trying to follow the laws the united states again there are no restrictions as to what you can sell to an individual if you sold one pill to a person one called tablet hell and you knew that that pill would be used to manufacture methamphetamine you violated the law you can sell a case of it or you can sell one pill of it it our contention that the reasonable cause to believe standard used in this particular case gets rid of the mens rea the evil intent followed by the evil working  hand it totally gets rid of it there's no there's no knowledge demonstrated it just says that that the jury has to find that the person involved or had a reasonable cau i know the court's aware of this but i want to point out again that guilt is the personal thing you can't just lump someone's actions in with a group of others in this particular case mr karr was lumped in with other individuals who had actually sold pseudoephedrine in large quantities to undercover agents and were caught doing so she never did that act she owned the store the sewer feder was kept behind the counter and they say it was kept behind the counter because people would come in and steal it and also points out that she had a difficult time doing their own ordering and paying your own bills that in fact the people who were providing the store the wholesalers were in fact coming in and a store owners including mr cart with their orders and placing items on the shelves for them and basically writing a check and then having the store owner sign the check and that's how i hate to use the word ignorant but that's how ignorant these people work to even even writing checks the fact that they have an ability to work hard their records demonstrates that these individuals work twelve thirteen hours a day seven days a week and they're hard working individuals they were just trying to make a fast buck again they were just trying to sell a legal product the fact they were selling a large quantities is not against the law if you if i sell several cases of pseudoephedrine to someone thinking they're going to use that  product to say take to another state to sell or perhaps they just have to say that they own a camp for children and they have lots of allergies and they need lots of these pills all at once a virus so let's just say the girl scouts of america a case of pseudoephedrine i haven't violated the law because they're going to use the pills legally they're not going to break them down  into the statutes and less the activity is inherently dangerous and so in cold medications is not an activity that is inherently dangerous i believe i have what i i  favors your side here we have one who is marginally guilty but we have joined with her unrelated to her  always say when you see one you see the other and that's that's that's a prejudice that happens when you have minority groups which prevent these things and in montana when one guy and i was traveling from the airport to the court this morning i had and a driver who was wearing a turban does that mean that he's a terrorist now but if i were having a jury trial and i had the gentleman sitting  mean he was charged with a crime would he be prejudiced because of his background probably in this particular case this woman was prejudice because again she was one thin west a large group of individuals who own d other stores who had nothing to do with her who didn't know her remember there was really no conspiracy charge here merely they were saying that she just the only the only reason they put anything in there was that  trials but more than one trial your honor the reason why i can see between there was yes your honor in this case there was the same confidential source that made control purchases from each store each defendant was investigation by the defendants and the confidential source and recorded conversations referencing referencing and other store operator named jesse in this case eighteen was known to the in his view jessie was a different person and that came out in the testimony and whether or not that is accurate or not accurate would be within the jury's round to determine but at the time of the trial there was not only a trial at the point in which the evidence is not reflected in the record i believe but it was at the point in which all the evidence was in and basically at the close of the government's case it was just like you heard that expression many times i'm sure negotiating the transaction concerning another individual and indian individual convenience store operator known as jessie in this case  jury was instructed that a saying was no longer part of the case other than the specific wording other than being no longer part of the case i i don't want to speculat other words that were said but i would indicate that the jury instructions at the close of trial were that the jury was to weigh the evidence against each defendant separately without regard to the other and i would suggest your honor that the in terms of the brief before the court what was raised an argument was was narrowly defined as to whether or not the court fashioned jury instructions specifically defining reasonable cause to believe established a reasonable person standard or not whether or not there is or isn't a subjective element in the statutes