occur at least two jurors did research outside of the courts arena on the internet and they determined and they obtained information which was not presented in open court about struck wrong and his conviction yeah that's about this or should come in his conviction by a jury and i think that's a key distinction not only that he was convicted but by a jury juror m c and i  used the letters rather than their names for confidentiality and i hope the court accept that but your empty indicated that he had gone on the internet and he obtained information about the garden and modocs now that's not necessarily not only how this hurt your client but why didn't help your client i mean it corroborated the defense that shot cohen was the bad guy then chicana done this and that's obviously the government's argument right case makes sense why  the circumstances in which it was made and the significance of it the bailiff originally thought that that mr dickerson had committed these kinds of crimes or and of course in the trial itself the court had been indictment and it's there and they are the only two that are charged in the same indictment and they're charged with conspiracy and now the theory of the defense was that there was no agreement between these parties to engage in a conspiracy certainly and we argued that the defendant chicana is guilty but we also argued that there was no agreement now when you put that into context and you are and then you see that well individuals the pendant of the twelve that are now going to decide this decision also made the determination that mr chicago and engaged in a conspiracy and engaged in an agreement with of course mr because fact greater than simply that mr g kong was the defendant that should be guilty so that's the crux of the argument in this particular case we did make a motion that it was a constitutional nature we do consider that this should be a dickerson analysis we do feel that the government has not proven its case or met its burden in this particular fashion we do think that that also is prejudicial as i indicated to the court doesn't say that well i thought well i thought you said that they found out he'd been guilty of conspiracy in agreement all i found was that he had been found guilty and you say that's the difference here is that was guilty of conspiracy in agreement i missed that all right well the record the record specifically states there the indictment only has two defenders there it's only as a conspiracy the jurors are instructed specifically on the elements to be proven in a conspiracy know ok but i'm what i'm trying to hone in on is precisely what m n l found out in terms of what chicago had been convicted of well and there is where there is a conflict and of course and i found out from el had been found guilty of the charges now pending against the pilot that's what they found out but l had not found out had he no l that remind that elton i did that right which is understandable and then of course the judge went on and i don't think this makes a difference frankly the judge went online to try to find it himself but the judge you know we don't know the foundation upon which he attempted to do that and i think that frankly that's not what improper although i didn't object to that at that time but the  line is that when the state of the mind just was simply trying to get to the bottom of this there's something wrong with that no there's not other than the fact that we did know exactly what the judge did we didn't know where the judge followed the same pattern that there was however the opening argument nowhere said that to come was convicted by a jury of twelve individuals no where did the opening statement or anybody say that in fact she cone had entered into an agreement with my client the defendant now we all know that there are in charge coconspirators that can occur all the time but the key here is that twelve people in the pennant of the twelve jurors that are standing there trying decision had already made this decision that in fact there had been an agreement entered into otherwise they couldn't found cyclone guilty so nowhere did the defense or prosecution then it would have been improper for made i made the objection on the constitutional grounds which i stated in my brief and i had moved to a new trial on that basis but nowhere did the judge make any determination or finding  may have please the court my name is samuel wong i'm assisting united states attorney from sacramento california i represent united states in this case i'd like to respond to a few of the fence counsel's statements and the first is all three charged with the conspiracy to manufacture marijuana plants have the trial only involved garcia to calm pled guilty he was not convicted after any jury trial he pled guilty to a violation of eighteen united states code section one twenty four c one a one which is possession of a firearm in for themselves or trafficking crimes but as for the third defendant jose sanchez he was a fugitive he's coconspirator were involved in this case jose sanchez the court the district court found after conducting its own investigation that there was no extensive evidence first of  all he's the one who's accused of going on the internet and finding the information that you cohen was guilty then surely most denied that he ever found anything on the internet or he was looking for it he was looking for it but he couldn't find it so how did juror m conjure up this idea that he did find it i think what happened your honor was there was discussion by other jurors that column was found guilty because the jurors heard from  white saying all during his opening statement mr dwight saniel said in his opening statement and i'll quote so calm let's talk about him for a moment because he is in fact guilty of this crime and we certainly contend so the jurors heard that during the opening statement in fact i was flabbergasted because i know that as a prosecutor i could not be introducing evidence like that in an opening statement but mr samuel was the one who said a lot of jurors remember that in fact a few jurors and i believe fact been found guilty on what you have is a finding of fact by the trial court that there was no extrinsic evidence after talking to all these jurors that's correct that the court interviewed each of these jurors and the court found that there was very little evidence that it was expensive evidence put it front of the final and then the court read stick conclusion that little evidence was so good that there was no it's been sick evidence introduced to the jury and i suppose unless that's clearly erroneous were bound by and i would submit that is the case your honor and here the district court went to the extra steps and look into whether it juror could find information about the comport from the court's computer system and from the internet and the court conclusively found that then information was not available to the public the court i think spent the weekend trying to find that information and after the investigation the courts that that information and information was not available to the public so there was no extrinsic evidence and even if there were there was this information about you coming found guilty it was mr samuel who introduced that information to the jury why was juror elder excused juror l attempted to find information from the internet and he admitted he admitted that he admitted that but he denied that he found anything he said that he looked for about two or three minutes and then he gave up and and the trial court made a finding on that too yes the trial court made a finding that there was no prejudice the trial court was the jurors in court all twelve of them individually and the court also defined for the jurors what the liberation basically means discussions for the determination of guilt or innocence and with that definition in mind each of the jurors that they had not been deliberating they had not selected a four person they had not even received the exhibits they had not even receive the written instructions there were they were just engaged in casual discussions some people weren't even talking about the case for quite a few the jurors felt they should have been deliberating but they weren't the jurors instructions give the jurors the instruction start anew start with a clean slate commence deliberations all over again and that's what the jurors did mr garcia received a very fair trial in this case there was argument that you're calling was guilty of the offense or do you do you agree with judge trot i think what he was when he was asking the question was well it seems to me that this fits more into your defense resin than being prejudicial garcia suffered no prejudice at all garcia wanted the jurors to believe that cohen was guilty and that a calm was the person responsible for the marijuana garden but if they were charged with a conspiracy can trick own be convicted of a conspiracy without someone else being involved in the conspiracy she could have been found guilty of conspiring with the other defendant who was not present that was jose sanchez and the indictment also says that on conspired with other persons unknown to the grand jury this person is and i know there were a lot of other sleeping bags found in this marijuana garden there was evidence that i think they're worth sixteen i'm sorry it's a large number of over a dozen pruning shears that were found in this marijuana garden the number of pretty sure is gives you an idea as to the number of coconspirators necessary to harvest the six thousand four hundred fifty one marijuana plants in this case there was definitely going to be more than one person involved this was not one person operation there were multiple sleeping bags multiple places to sleep it took several truckloads truckloads and truckloads mr garcia would have been convicted anyway yes that's what the district court found the district court you cited the evidence in this case we cited the fact that the defendant tried to obstruct justice and white on the in the stand the testimony of the witnesses who identified mr garcia as the person involved in purchasing the metal t post the rat poison there was testimony that mr garcia was the person who bought air time for the cellular telephone the receipt for which was found in the marijuana garden there was evidence that mr garcia was responsible for buying groceries mr garcia also lied to the owner of the ranch regarding why the water tank was empty of water and then mr garcia lied then said he never even think that statement to the owner there was so much evidence against mr garcia including the fact that he told the realtor that hey come in come this october i'm going to run into some money i'm going to be looking to buy some property well october is when marijuana is harvested the evidence at the trial established that the value of the marijuana was in the neighborhood nine hundred twenty million dollars and mr garcia was a man of little means before the marijuana garden started that was what the realtor said but somehow during that summer and later in the into the fall he seemed to come into more money and he was ready to buy at least two pieces of property and help another woman friend of mr garcia purchased a five of us are probably by giving her the down payment there's just a mountain of evidence against mr garcia do you have anything you want to say on the sentencing issues honor i believe the sentencing issue is controlled by two cases one is the mix case that the united states cited in its brief and the second one and i commend mr white's daniel for his integrity in this case brought to the court's attention the coombes case which is that which was issued after the government filed its brief and i believe that those both of those cases the side the case in favor of the government and the convictions in this case should be  just i think that the government is engaged in some speculation as to how your al and your  interpret what went on i think it engaged and speculation when it is that your m who is left on the jury by the way found out that the cole was guilty and how did that happen now however it happened in my opinion makes no difference it's the state of mind of juror l or whatever the foundation might be yeah i think the relative issues you know you might have a point here except the court conducted a pretty thorough investigation of this issue and rendered a finding of fact as to how this happened and what it was all about concluded there was no extrinsic evidence and read the whole watching listening and hearing to all these people well i think that certainly the facts are as stated the court's finding of fact so to speak is really a conclusion and i think that this court can review that conclusion and unless it's clearly or only if it's if it's clearly erroneous we don't have to pay any attention to it right but it's got to be clearly erroneous and that's standard to review was described by the second sixth circuit mutes got to have the stench of a six day old unrefrigerated calendar the rather third case and we will adjourn until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock thanks to all counsel