parent of forty four consent the officer the two officers in this case were not coming to prove its home blinds they had been investigating prudes home for the past forty eight hours and that one of the officers officer chapman had actually searched prudes home for five hours just the night before they came back to get the journal and during that search she specifically looked for identification of residence to identify who lived in the home and police officers also conducted hours of surveillance on the home they arrested four people interrogating them in connection with the home including pruitt's prior to this illegal entry they froze the home under police control and yet they still didn't know who this woman was when she answered the door and so without any inquiry and chapman the officer testifying that her identity was not relevance they simply accepted her her word  and went in the door in violation of illinois versus rodriguez and the journal being oh i'm sorry i was arrested and the journal be the core of the government's case there cannot be harmless and in fact the government that the woman did say she lived there that's not enough under the rodriguez test because of the extensive knowledge they had the time it wasn't reasonable for the officers to believe her statement because they had such knowledge about the home and its occupants and they had never seen her before she was not involves in the search before she was a presence no one are and we still don't know who she is they've never actually proved her identity and so that requires suppression of the that he owns the apartment i don't know offhand how many bedrooms there were if that was in the record you know but one of the one of any trouble with here is that yes they might have been there before and it is common and not just in the experience of people who might be engaged in criminal behavior but common for all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons that people go in and out all the time and there might have been three or four people living there in if that's that's the test of how again of rodriguez because i don't lot of cases police are coming to the home not knowing anything about the home and here that was very much degraded because they had been watching them so closely in the forty eight hours the parent authority and that had to be ruled on by the magistrate and the district court and the magistrate didn't address the apparent authority test in her opinion and the district court just adopted her opinion law enforcement witnesses tell the truth and the nd they constructed amendments so i can talk about this the jerk a instruction st it was a side bar and why dear she was individually instructed instructor and you let them start with the presumption that they're telling the truth and then decide credibility based on their and she said absolutely and that the presumption of truth instruction is preserve presumed long person tells the truth it wasn't an immediate correction and in the case of the government i did say it is i believe miller and one other case that was an immediate correction the judges and you know immediately real isolation and said that i'm going to give the media correction here there was simply much later at the end of trial there was a just the general instructions and then general instructions of presumption of innocence and burden of proof as  elements but not specifically you know instruction as to witnesses and then the credibility instruction given at the end of the trial again it didn't say don't presume these when this is really telling the truth is just here's some guidance require reversal because of this instruction and that would be the st jury hung this was not a case of overwhelming evidence and then this instruction was given in the nd trial where the jury convicted and this is also an instance which is more unusual it does happen but where the court has given the of the instruction that means that the jurors actual bias and when it's from the chord the court has the greatest influence and it goes through how that's very firmly implanted you know in a court instruction individual juror personally that's very firmly rooted in that jersey mines and is unlikely a general instruction will undo that and because also it favors the government's witnesses here all of the government's witnesses the majority were along foresman office so to presume law enforcement officers tell the truth but not presume any other witnesses are  error here for the nd trial but also to the scales of the government's favor was the constructive amendments of the central counts the sex trafficking now and it would not only was a change from the  all they had to prove was the defendant mill that the victim was a prostitute now there's not enough under the statutes and this instruction allow that it has to be the apps the defendant intends to take that he means would cause it takes it out of the defendant's actions and those of the defendant's liability and allows convention based on congress that does not the defendants and so i c any his law whether it's the circuit or other circuits where there has been a conviction based on something other than the defendant's play and land actions and that's precisely what the jury was told here that it could be it's a mandatory minimum of ten years it requires more than just knowing as someone is engaging in prostitution everywhere is causing that person to engage in prostitution whether it's the supplier who's going to dinner or whether it's  by you know the court wanted to make that element clear to the jury but in doing so it broadened its beyond the scope of the statute forming a construct of amendment and says unless there's other questions i'll mment is fresh in my mind neither this debt should nor the indictment require nor the model nor this car's model jury instruction requires that the defendant's actions be the cause of the to engaging in a commercial sex act but the statute says that the defendant has to the st element has a knowingly entice them toward harbor i mean there is an active requirement that things that the defendant must do the nd element is that the defendant must know or have reason to believe that the detail will be caused to engage in their commercial sex sites and what this supreme court has that in dean is that when congress uses that passive voice for an action it it reflects agnosticism as to who caused the actions it doesn't matter who caused her to engage in a sex act she just has to have been caused to do the commercial sex act now in response to just pleasures question i hadn't even thought i mean my answer would be that it that the way the judge the judge revised that jury's jackson didn't change or the knowledge certainly violence i think is the phrase and and that that nd element when you're talking about that he's of the statue the government has to prove that the defended knew that force or violence or fried there is sort of i because ation peace and that because the government has to prove that the force of violence will be used to cause whereas here when it comes to when we're talking about the sex trafficking of children that piece doesn't apply and you're just talking about the defendant has to actively you know knowingly and titus harbor support or whatever down the whole list of verbs and has to do so knowing that the child will will be understand but i don't think at the end of the day it resulted in in any change the meaning of that of the statute with respect to that question of that of the prospective juror at side you know i think i think that my the judge is getting out if you read the entire you know thirty four pages of colloquy about all of us right that the court was trying to get it trying to get confirmation and that this perspective juror was not going to be biased and was not was going to be able to listen to the end of his visit with an open mind and wasn't going to be influenced by this by this prior situation that she had had with her son and with a lot of burden and with their criminal justice system i mean i think that that it's a challenge jury instruction to the extent that you consider this is a jury instruction and i don't i question that just a little bit the just made this comment this comment which as we have here is you can you can see from the transcript that the juror the judge you're kind of talking over each other a little bit the judge made this comment it completely escapes everyone's notice and i will say you know in their in their brief pruitt characterize this comment as the just your card specific instruction to jerk a jew automatically believe the government put on st no witnesses now that's not how i read that statement i think if the judge had said i specifically instruct to automatically believe the government government's witnesses that is not a comment that what is good and anyone's notice i mean i think the prosecutor when it said whoa hey let's back out of here and try again right i mean i think that this was a passing comment comments can can make a juror biased to the extent they don't evaluate that in light of all of the other jury instructions they don't go through that analysis i mean it is true that the presence of a bias juror can be structural error but but that is assuming that this was a bias sure when she said over and over absolutely she can keep her mind you know she can keep an open mind she can she is that going to be biased against this event counsel has after this discussion about a lot of forest land she came out she was actually kind of mad about her that her son flyers as a then there was a discussion about whether she would be biased against defense counsel and she said absolutely not absolutely not and at the end of that entire discussion the judge turned to the so that both of their lawyers prosecution and defense and does anybody want to object for cause and both had said no your honor so i think i did you think that you know this is one of those situations where there is no such thing as a perfect trial right there is no such thing as a trial where nobody makes a mistake and nobody misses b c you know this is the question of whether there was a juror spot bias juror on the jury right you have to look at all of all of it together you have to look at not only this statement that the court made that it should have worded differently but you have to look at the fact that in the moment the people who were there didn't think enough of this comment to object and then you have to look at the fact that the judge properly and correctly did instructed the jury that the defendant has a presumption of innocence that the scales are tipped in his behavior that the jury is the one that decides the credibility of witnesses that nothing the judge has said or done should suggest to the jurors in any way shape or form which way he thinks they should decide these issues so i mean i think that when you look at all of that as a whole i don't think i don't think how one piece i mean i don't think you can always say that that has attorneys billiards who object to a juror charges that juror injured invited her because i think there are probably circumstances where that's not the case but i do think that looking at this as a whole you just don't have that kind of i mean you have to evaluate it is a whole i don't think you can assume that this one comment by the judge which went unnoticed by everyone turns this prospective juror otherwise it's then repeatedly that she would be able to be fair and impartial into a biased juror to the extent that now we're talking about a structural  about six different really fascinating legal questions in this in this issue but first of all the magistrate has made three specific findings that i think are worth  is she found the officer who testified at that suppression hearing credible nd she found flat out the officers did not conduct a search going after they were let into the apartment on that nd trip by  black woman and as the victim who was also standing at the door there was found there was some discussion about which one of them invited them in whether whether they were both at the door he testified to the suppression hearing that they open you know that the door was open and they were kind of both there it may be that the victim was walking from the back of the apartment as the other woman opened the door and but eventually they were there together in any event after they came in there was a search right after they came in and the officers that you officers each had a conversation with she women and the victim in this case asked the officer did speak privately went into another room because she journal that you wrote about this stuff you know was you st he said was he left would you come down to the police station to talk with me and she said yes and he said you know can we take your journal with us and she said yes she consensually went with him he carried the journal there was some discussion so there was some sort of a fear of the other woman that was in the apartment and so what he said is if you like i think he had half you know and walk you out of the apartment so that she doesn't know that you're coming with me to talk to me about this and the victim said yes i'd like to do that so he handcuffed her to take her out of the apartment and he had the journal in his hand as he's walking her out but there was  doctrine right what this court what is the premier heart set in illinois vs rodriguez is that you did as someone the question and illinois versus rodriguez is do the police violate the th amendment when they go police are reasonable in believing that the person who is letting them in has the authority to do that then that does not violate the th amendment and they say that this is context or data depending on how you how you put it because in circumstances that could conceivably besides that even if somebody said they lived there the officers would be reasonable in believing that ok so that it is and they say it is an exception and that this court appl that in united states versus reed and i think that interesting thing about united states versus reed is st of all the officers had really nice pacific reasons to disbelieve virtually not me that the person who answered the door lived there i mean there are for example that here this was an apartment and there was a parking spot for that apartment and there was a car that had always parked in that spot and they'd been surveilling the apartment her really long time and they knew that apartment want to one there there's a lexus that hurts in that spot and when he answered the door they said you know whose car that is and he says no now that was his apartment and he would know who is parking their car routinely in that parking spots r they had reasons they also they actually also knew the names of the people who were on the lease and his name was one of them that they had a lot of information and so at this court said was they shouldn't have just accepted his invitation  should have asked him if you lived there right now i don't know that in light of all of the other circumstances whether that would have been enough but it but they weren't saying that you can't take some for it they're saying that there could be a situation where there are circumstances that would not make it reasonable for you to take someone's word for it and here they open the door the woman opens the door she no question in the record whatsoever that she lived there so whether she was the one who invited them in or whether she acquiesced to them being there and didn't ask them to leave our marriage i don't think that there's any real clear  but but in any event so she had actual authority the other woman had a parent authority and in the case that she opened the door she said she lives there she said that she didn't want to be talking about this out on the porch and she didn't want the neighbors to he and so then she either invited then enter the officers asked if they could come in and she said yes but there's that but there's nothing in the rat heard that would make it an reasonable for the officers to believe her when her at their apartment the other day and i think the fact that somebody is the sit in on her one day does it give you reason to doubt that they live there when they're there another day i mean i don't think that being it out is how if we do it and whether there's more than that a lot of this stuff was not breached in the district court and that is lee you know that big piece of that as the victim who absolutely lives in the apartment and was there she was not available at the time of the suppression hearing that just reported actually already i think it was before this had already made a finding that the defendant's misconduct had made her unavailable but so she wasn't there to testify whether she gave that actual authority but i guess going back to my earlier point even again that he had sent her that the entry was improper led the supreme court has said is that when they did with it as they are the police cannot go into a place without a warrant to a home without a warrant to arrest someone or to search or see this raid well here they weren't arresting anybody they did not connect to search and there was nothing about her coming agreeing to come to the police station with them a green to let them bring her journal with her that was a result of the fact that they had that conversation inside the house rather than outside the house if i could just have one hundred and ten seconds for an analogy they were the police have been thank you the police said it best getting a burglary and i think that if they had if they had not had proper consent to go in and if they had no idea and if they had seen crossing the burglary laying around the house right that's the kind of thing that would have to be suppressed because that's out as they came out as a result of their being inside the house rather than outside the house this thank you your honor i'll address the concession issue st because that's where the government's argument ended and there's only one question here and that's yes there was apparent authority to answer her as home everything that permissable yes ok yes it wasn't plain sight of me looked at it to see if there were no identified who resided in the apartment no it wasn't covered by the search there when they came in the next day and they asked about the journal they were allowed to know that earlier that they'd been having this house under surveillance for a while and therefore they knew or should have known the best woman did live there and judge  some questions that from my perspective sounded skeptical on so all less if i recall the skeptical or perhaps even more so i don't understand your argument why should they have know by virtue of the earlier surveillance that this woman did not reside there what is the objective evidence that we're supposed to consider in our determination that the there was no identification the woman had the time she answered or when they searched the apartments they didn't have seen any information that that woman lived in that apartment and they talked to her and other people associated with the apartments and she was not identified in any of those interrogations or did it i just don't see how ruiz is triggered by any of those comments that you just made or argument that you made  seems to be the ruiz requires a great you're more then these kind of suppositions that you throw up in the air that we're supposed to accept as proof that she didn't live there i'm it during the questioning when the young lady said to the officers i'd like to speak to you she asked to speak privately because she didn't want the woman to hear i thought that in that exchange there was some suggestion that there was some either social or some familial relationship one of the other between the two of them