good morning if you please the court my name is kenneth p table and i'm here in behalf of keris wilson i'd like to reserve three minutes of time for a bottle or i'm going to focus my argot argument here this morning at the frankly i think the law that applies to these type of charges is very hard to reconcile in distinguish it from my reading the cases circuits seemed to be the intention the statute says that to find a person guilty of this crime there has to be showing that the crimes committed for the purpose of maintaining entering criminal enterprise in the case law talks about that has to be an integral part of that it doesn't have to be the sole purpose has to be the dominant purpose in the that's that's where the the problem comes in in mind view there has to be some type of limiting framework to the application of the statute because otherwise anytime someone is shown to be along to a criminal enterprise or game and then they commit a violent act how do you decide whether that was in furtherance of the of the gang activity or not there's got to be some principle that we can look at the cases all say personal motivation doesn't count but the proofs as you read the different cases are here's a criminal enterprise they commit crimes of violence to further their drug trafficking enterprise and to do this do that and maintain their posture as tough people a community and if someone looks at them askance they're going to kill him because that keeps their position in the game well ok all these cases if you look at them very carefully on the factual basis of the case they're all different than what happened in this case in my opinion if you're going to actually of apply the law carefully and i'm calling on a careful application why why is that there's got to be some time linkage to show that the defendant bought into agreed to was part of  if you disrespect me i'm going to do something to you well i mean there's certainly reason to think that's true with regard to mr wells right and these are full fledged he's the younger it was he the young the original gangster her crimes are two thousand and eight this is this so called gaming is is an amorphous senator leave it starts and some really point goes to some future point but in terms of i'm doing stuff because i'm in the game doesn't it doesn't it's not proven in this case because we're we're talking about a sufficient c argument at this point right sure ok i mean sure there's sufficient evidence for the jury to say that he's a full fledged member of the gang when it kills it was conceded that he was a member of the game when these incidents occurred to those in need and then and so he kills going who is a member of another gang and going to suppose they're going to get him right right and then he kills frank one who is a pro friend of another game member of another different gangs those are their leaders straight so and i think there  evidence that would allow the jury a certain clue that franklin was dating big the guy that they originally were trying to find when they're driving around that day isn't that fair here so i mean is it really that big a leap for the jury in this case i mean i understand your concern about can't criminalize every violent action can't bring in under this statute that again member commits but in this case they get in the car they're looking for this this guy is in the other gang and they don't shoot him they shoot the girlfriend why because she's the girlfriend of somebody in the other game i would look at that episode couldn't my question is why couldn't a jury look at it the way i just described we could sit here and hypothesize but jackson versus your genius that is not our mandate for good any rational jury view this as motivated by gang membership and the goals of the game to attack and combat other gangs franklin's murder the jury has to find that the purpose of the activity of killing the girl did something to promote maintenance room the group activity my argument is that as to miss franklin what may have started out as something activity transmuted into some personally that's my argument as to the franklin case and what what reason because those he have to get come home car full of gang members to unload there because they start off as let's say let's concede that they start off on a game mission right and get a member of the opposing view was killed was something right a mother forget the name but they see one person there's a police officer they don't go for him and just right there's a guy to gas station they don't they don't go for him they see their car they think that's another good member person the car turns out it's the victim but if you accept the testimony their statements of he would get your girlfriend if you don't want to get his girlfriend before you get your state thing but there's no way a jury that that is the rationale isn't that fair i mean there's the evidence though i mean why why the evidence is there driving around looking for somebody to kill from the other gang and there's a guy pumping gas and they want to kill him but you know they would be worried about true some reason and then they go to this use the posterboard that are brought in today and or stand the court's very generously said i could use it for the argument and i appreciate that i don't know if it's helpful or not i thought that it might be these are still photos taken from the surveillance video at tennessee state university gentry center on may eighteenth two thousand and nine the date that andres taylor was killed the and i have copies of these for the court and law long after mr taylor had been killed mr taylor was shot but west entrance which is over on this sat over here and went down hill double down the hill and died this p was taken from one thousand nine hundred three minutes and forty seven seconds which is about bob or six seconds after the shooting took place you know when a disagreement about when the shooting took place a trial because you could see a rush of people coming out this is these you can see them coming out there what this shows is a young man and a white shirt with this hands going down the pants in front of him eight seconds later this next picture is taken it shows another young man and a white shirt coming out again with his right hand going down into his hands the fourth picture that i have here is taken twelve seconds after the shooting excuse me after this  second gentleman came out the door approximately twenty seconds after the shooting this is officer don black twenty four year veteran of the nashville metropolitan police department officer black was on duty that day he was in the gymnasium at the time the shooting took place heard the shooting came out in the foyer they talked to witnesses very quickly who all told him the shooters went out that door pointing to the east entrance door several witnesses he talked to all said the same thing he testified at trial they pointed to the door and said they went out that door officer black started to go out the door hesitated for just a second because he thought i better get back up the shooters could still be right outside this door waited got back back up and came out with his gun drawn because the information he had was the shooters had gone out that door marquis cooper defense witness all standing right around here right outside east entrance door some twelve minutes after the shooting took place run during this was a done by government witnesses and defense witnesses were in the are which is about eight minutes later so what's the upshot of that merritt the upshot is ron during this williamson was wearing a black shirt black pants black hat on may eighteenth that was testified to not only by defense witnesses but by government witnesses a dream a gun marie and monta morgan rebuttal witness and which of the prosecution witnesses say the killer was wearing a light colored clothing is the shooting who said that the shooter and the opposite direction coincidentally through the gym where officer black was working there's total chaos right after these shots go  about which direction somebody is running in that sort of scenario and yet still be correct this that person was the shooter i mean right well i suppose you could make the argument that a person c is that you apparently purely have i think three witnesses who said that mr williams was the shooter and they their testimony conflicts you could say collateral points now i commend you for your vigorous advocacy in the breach that everything but i mean you have to understand the standard that we're dealing with here all right so that the t shirt or which you know he ran this way but not this way i mean that's collateral to whether he was the one who shot and so i mean how do you square these areas of disagreement with the jackson standard i mean are you saying that no rational jury could believe any of these witnesses about the the who the shooter was yes and with all due respect i think you overstate the government's evidence considerably there well they have three and i understand your point about social science with you know memory transference and all that i mean i take my word i take that seriously but it reads like a cross examination an outline not you know a reason why a court of appeals can reject a witness's testimony which your response well the witness's testimony first off let's start with the statement that there are three government witnesses that saw the shooting that's not accurate one insufficient evidence for a conviction when there was a witness who said that they saw all the defendant commit the murder but any case ever were that does what you're asking us to do i mean i understand i fully appreciate your points about the conflicting indoors and you know boy doesn't that raise a reasonable doubt but is there any case where somebody said i saw that defendant shoot the victim more specific story i mean i'm not saying it can't be done but i am asking and i think it's germane has any court of appeals federal circuit ever helped that oh jury was not entitled to believe a witness's firsthand test her testimony that that she firsthand so all the defendant killed victim when it was not time's up and that's ok are you aware of any such case i believe that scott brown and parker all say that your honor because the point being if in i understand your argument and i understand you're trying to extend that principle but the answer my question sounds like no because his scott is a civil case will this court said it in regard to a motion to suppress that if a witness's testimony at the motion suppressed conflicts with direct hard evidence for good if it was a video in that case or not i think it was a video maybe an audio but i believe a video tape in that case no it's not entitled to believe  conflicts with our evidence i understand you are you know i just want to see if anybody ever done this before thank you dear good morning honors in may please the court date lieberman for the united states both defendants have focused their presentations on the sufficiency claim so i'm going to follow where they have led starting with mr wilson moving on to mr williams olson he does focus on this purpose an element of the vie car statute the requirement that he committed the murders for the purpose of maintaining or increasing his status within the gang the district court further define that purpose element to say that it had to be a substantial purpose and that is actually quite similar to what instruction the ninth circuit approved in the bank's case that wilson has resigned has cited repeatedly throughout this litigation the government's evidence on this requirement that everybody put in work the rule that if a crowd of a rival gay member disrespects you handle your business which means shoot them fight them possibly kill them and they took oath in prayers glorifying violence in retaliation because mr wilson was in the gang he was a full fledged member of the gang the jury could reasonably infer that he was aware of all these customs norms and rules on the specific evidence tying these murders to gang related purpose  every question would be was the jury required to assume that and in the course of course have said defendants can have mixed motives in this case so long as the gang motive is a dominant or substantial or primary purpose  and the fact that both victims had connections to rival gangs in some respect it was a keeping aspect of the government's evidence here and also was a key aspect of numerous other court opinions interpret provision i would also encourage the court to look at mr wilson's actions leading up to both murders for the greens murder he actually wanted to shoot going several days before on the street but was stopped by a supervisor  original gangster no g and so he discussed the matter with the o g so that shows some gang connection and then as the court mentioned earlier before franklin's murder they were if mr wilson was present with three other bloods members they went out they almost shot a rival crip member archie henry discontinued their pursuit when the police showed up and then went to another neighborhood saw alexander franklin and it was mr william who's excuse me mr wilson who said that alexander franklin that's clarence killer who shot his girlfriend let's get her the other members hesitated and then mr wilson reminded all of his fellow gang members that killed who shot had threatened one of their girlfriends and the case was when you bring in your rival gang when you bring in your fellow gang members into this type of violent act it serves a gang related purpose final point we know that several days after the going murder another gang member writes a letter noting that mr wilson had been promoted to be a gangster i think this is less than a week after the going to murder and then at some point after the franklin murder after mr wilson is in jail he starts signing his letters as  gee young original gangster that's two promotions during that time period that we're talking about and the testimony was clear to right to raise in rank you have to put in work and these murders are certainly classic examples of putting in work so the jury in this case could easily reach the conclusion of a gang related purpose let me switch over to mr williams and his sufficiency argument is the government did not prove that he was the shooter let me quickly review the government's evidence on this front and then all returned to my friend on either side argument about the security camera video we had motive in this case andreas taylor and mr williamson were involved in that giant gang brawl at club faded the night before the gentry center shooting at the at the during this brawl mr taylor beat up mr williamson gang rules dictate if a crowd just respects handle your business so that's background he was an obvious target undisputed that mr williamson was present at the gentry center the government called three witnesses and when their evidence when their testimony is viewed collectively establish the linkage between mr williamson and the shooter injuring montgomery he hear shots i believe the testimony was that he saw mr williamson run ahead in immediately go out the door and then instantly heard shots which door there was not testimony from this mr my got me on that point  saw mr williamson on the second floor her attention was drawn to him because she said i thought he was attractive several minutes later she's walking down the same steps sees a man pull out the gun and then fire and then later she says to the police i'm eighty percent sure that that was mr williamson present that hurts you more than helps you eighty percent sure i wouldn't you don't some people buy from prison right for eighty percent if this bottle was the that she said eighty percent and if i'm remembering correctly the defense cross examined on that point so that the fact that she said eighty percent at the police lineup was laid bare before the jury klein cunningham he was outside the gentry center saw mr williamson several minutes minute or two after the shooting and said that he had a gun i maybe missed more misremembering the trial transcript i don't remember any testimony contrary to my friend on the other side who says that about which door the shooter came out of and so all that testimony was i saw mr williamson outside immediately after the shootings with the gun and i also want to point out that the government put forth several pieces of evidence that i would call confirmatory of the conclusion that mr williamson was the very suspicious phone call from jail where he in an unidentified woman are talking about the gentry center shooting and he says quote everybody needs to stick to the same story we're going to get through this shit he writes a letter to adrian montgomery who ended up cooperating with the police in tells montgomery to quote stay tree high and keep your mouth shut final point on the  the jury would have seen at trial that mr williamson had face tattoos on his face were six letters t t p treetop hero that's the name of his bloods gang and then also t s u tennessee state university where the shooting took place and jury could reasonably infer from this tattoos that mr williamson had a strong connection to the shooting there given the fall i mean i think you need to hope that the two  the shooter now returning to the security camera video and mr williamson characterizes hard evidence exonerated him exonerating him the jury did not have to accept that as i understand mr  williamson's chain of inference is here is that the shooter had to go out the east door and then the security camera did had to capture that because mr williamson was not on that camera ergo he's not the shooter to problems with that first of all there is no concrete evidence that the shooter went out any particular door mr rooms and realize quite a bit and officer donald black's testimony officer black was the first officer who responded to the  scene he said that a witness or maybe multiple witnesses said that they thought the shooter went out that door that's hearsay bills when this is not called that trial we don't know if those witnesses accounts were correct and so perhaps the shooter did not actually go up the door but even let's let's accept the premise that he did go out the door with the security camera have nash necessarily capture the shooter in the answer's no and the government will happily provide if the court request copies of the security video footage that's been reference today this was not a stationary camera focused on the door throughout this entire time the camera actually pans door to the area outside the door and then at some point to the driveway back again the camera also pans zooms in  zoomed up so be it the doors are actually never in the complete never always in complete focus of the camera the video is also incredibly grainy and so it is it is possible that the camera may have missed mr came out those doors perhaps the defense this person presented another reasonable explanation but that's not we're here on sufficiency and all we have to show is that the government passed muster in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict what about the  the defense harped on that quite a bit at trial to show that these witnesses accounts were unreliable the discord instructed the jury about how to treat inconsistency in the jury was entitled to reject that miss b and that may have been the jury's conclusion here again the inconsistency is a great drug argument and actually a number of the arguments that mr williamson makes now their arguments to make on a motion for newt a new trial when the district  another juror assessing credibility and he did that or tonight it has not appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial and that's the vehicle by which this court could review these credibility it determinations about witnesses and whether or not the witness who talks about the quotes the cover of the clothes i mean does montgomery say well i guess i mean the only inconsistency between what he was actually wearing and what a witness it no proof of that whatsoever in other words he does not hold a rank as enforcer or leader or anything like that where that's his job to take care of any and all threats come around i mean cheney has to go into this was some sort of potentially personal problem that record's a little bit unclear but somebody hears go on say he's going to get wilson i think that's mr t it says that and then i think says he thought he was about a girl and that's about it one other witness mr clarke says gone's had some beef with the bloods i don't know what that means the actual incident but surely that can that be enough to convert the later incident because this really are beef is not really related in time to that so the killing we don't know what happened we don't know who was there we don't know what it involved but the actual episode itself there's different versions of what happened but everyone agrees that a nagging personally regine reggie bah also shoots mr gone's what does that have to do with anything and how does it convert this episode in the some type of game violence a biker action type case t h a h a i which i have cited in my brief and which is referred to in the case that council submitted the corners j letter is precisely a case holding insufficiency of the evidence when a gang leader and two gang members committed an arson to gather for money it was not linked to the gang activity or enterprise it was held to be insufficient so that court has construed the statute morning early and so it's the i think there's a great danger here because we dislike games as we should it's reprehensible activity we don't we don't want to favor them but the law is the law and otherwise if you if you allow this generalized sort of floating testimony about games do this in games and that with linking it to show that mr wilson you know this mr wilson had to know that mr williams their star witness talks about all this stuff occurring in two thousand and ten mr mr wilson is even there earlier in time the game is very amorphous they're feuding with each other they're shooting each other they're doing well kinds of things independently the complaint letter that mr little said right saying wilson got some increase in rank in similar he says everybody's doing their own thing we're not working together etc etc it's very contradictory evidence and i think was insufficient to permit a reasonable jury to the government says that there are three witnesses testimony viewed collectively is enough they can't be viewed collectively they're completely inconsistent with each other the government abandoned excuse me kaela kind of camps testimony because it was inconsistent with their theory of the case adrian mcgovern reads testimony was conclusively disproved by the video he admitted it he admitted that his initial testimony was incorrect because the video showed it to be and correct because he's not coming out the east entrance so that while because he said he has the meeting up on a different part of campus when in fact is the last picture shot something right outside the east end that's at that's several minutes later right a few minutes later but that was an intricate part of his story that's highly collateral i mean you know jury can accept certain parts and not that right well in this case the jury has to pick one little bit out of each person's testimony ignore ninety nine percent of it and to answer your honor's question the case should be honored did elevate her level of certainty from eighty percent to one hundred percent after almost three years and i know you said you're familiar with the social science studies they all say that all all due respect that that was his testimony that he's coming up on the scene and he sees ron jerry's williamson and he says two or three other guys coming out the east entrance door and sees a gun in their hand though cunningham and the idea who it is he just says everybody there and he and it was more than one witness there were a number of witnesses said point he said they pointed to that door that's where the shooter went out with the permission of the chief judge given how much version which is one thousand and yes the camera does pan around at the time of the shooting minutes before the shooting minutes after the shooting it is trained on this door and you'll see that from the video if