hopefully it will aid you as well i want you to make the most efficient use of your time so with that said i would also say that it is my understanding that where it was prejudicial error because it left the jury to decide a key issue what is an official lott out without meaning for guidance that the supreme court has said is necessary and it bolsters the government's dallow and mr vietor money on christmas day two thousand and eleven to take this is science on terrorist payroll if she needed it to prevent a break in a federal service where there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever but that agreement was done with they understand being that there would be done anything in exchange for that favor that he was doing to his friend mr retirement and his friend governor when bell let me start if i don't know the facts underlying has something oh and their argument was how many of these could be coincidences that was their argument and the judge instructed the jury that if it found it should commit if it found a course of conduct and which there was an and mr fatah did anything to do with this and then and it could have because it time they wouldn't even know that this reserve requirement had to be met the only art in the government in this case remember their argument was never we can show you a beyond a reasonable doubt that the car was purchased as a quid pro quo for the hiring to sign their arguments throughout was even here we know that this is a subsequent act and they know these are played being what i think we've reached a point where maybe we're beating a dead who're son on whether or not that's enough we'll know what the facts are whether or not it is sufficient circumstantially wrong they're not official acts because they are constitutionally protected constituent advocacy which was the very point that they unanimous supreme court and mcdonnell said placed constituent knowing intending that another official will have that advice form the basis of their decision so to about the letter that is handle  actually the official duties of a senator come after nomination not before as us trying to say it's a judge greenway it would certainly be possible to have a case of the use of official position to pressure if  senator had the advice and consent power try to use that pressure you could also imagine a situation in which the white house agreed with the senator you know the people in your district we will continue to give us the three people you should consider throw in district court slot and in that instance there could be an informal arrangement in which the congressman head had been seated advisory power over a nomination but there's no evidence i again if the members use assumed sovereign official power either to make a decision to apply pressure or to give advice he can't sell the public's power but what actually reliance or even if it were possible for there to be reliance the court described it varies as and the actor intended that there be reliance given the evidence here the persistence of  law no reasonable jury could have have acquitted here has to be wrong as a matter of law for the very reasons that you just gave even under their own standard does have to be juridical questions to the question we have added in to what you're asking a judge krauss's are there circumstances in which on the record as you see it they added and is not sufficient for a rational jury to find that the government has pro beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a corrupt exchange for an act that is official and they supreme court's decision adonal says of course there are all kinds of fact patterns to do that and dismissed after they read them but there is no issue in this we have a record in this case we know the facts are the evidence of this at least in this case there's no credible basis for suggesting that mr fatah had any the red which over senator casey or over president obama he was advocating on behalf of his constituent and friend mr vader mime and that's not a use of the public's routine part time i'm sure position falls well outside the definition of official and i think your suggested this because it's nothing like a lawsuit agency determination or committee  do hire people and i need to staff up that's not routine that's essential to my function as a congress person and when i get to congress i vote i meet with people don't remember putting it exactly that way but there's no there's no benefit to the court and any to do anything other than report what happened the use of this and that that statement put this in a million extraordinary y carefully that question the transcript of many others but but eighteen years of tragedy here and a situation like this i concede to you it's highly unusual but your use of ying about the process and asking a question but on the entire record what you have then is what happened the next day in addition to the information coming from the jurors  i would see your argument if we were limited only to that first question or note from the food to your own along with a follow up that first occasion i could not look at that and say behavior and having observed him and during the course of that testimony and concluding from that not only that he wasn't credible but that he had preconceived notions about the case that he was  good he was again gauging in the past that's part of what they set up that he that he wasn't actively engaging in a discussion that he was you know was being obstinate and so matter of law growing that he just don't do this or take this judicial action this early as opposed to saying this was done and there was chill it seems to me those are two different to speak the truth the judge's job to make the group a friendly place an open place and make sure it's comfortable so we'll give exactly the kind of candid responses that are necessary for that for that process so anything twelve is acting so the jurors that are being asked that question now that if they disagree with the rest of the jury if they want to move on the others down if they want to vote and to prompt way that the other jurors can let me send them to the jet and the  including any other side from any other circuit to the judge because straight to questioning ensure  exactly to the juror are you suggesting that we adopt some supervisory rule that would require in these extraordinary circumstances for a trial judge first to give you such an instruction to continue deliberating the normal instructions that are given to a jury about how to conduct their deliberations before the judge considers the intrusive step of inquiry deliberating jurors yes record the entire record both did it's a question and the answer that were forthcoming and say that even in the absence of a restriction or supplemental instruction it's harmless  concerns about the conviction of my client who appeared to be the subject of the eleven to one vote on the repeal count her constitutional right to both figures hinge on the back of evidence related to mr granger gray areas and involvement beyond the specific when the acts found by the jury even accepting bridge conviction in a worse there was no evidence that mr grey knew the shores of the six hundred thousand dollars sent from e t a to solutions there was no evidence of any knowledge of what involved in a state similar scheme is that enough to be involved in the conspiracy i mean i think well it's pretty clear that it could be enough under the appropriate circumstances so so tell me he won't we do ha is sufficient to render any error in the jury instruction harmless beyond a reasonable doubt i'd like to begin by addressing the factual record on this because i think mr vandeman is argument about the sufficiency of the time the evidence  not correct the evidence the trial showed that on december twenty third two thousand and eleven the todd received a mortgage application shot at west showing that they would have to bring a hundred eighteen thousand dollars to the closing on their pocono vacation home to what at least for me is of considerable interest in these peoples and that is the ascendancy of mcdonnell after the convictions in this  relatively little time that this actually took up short of a trial there is also the fact that the great white hiring evidence whether there's any other error harmless and that is because the jury's verdict shows that the jury necessarily found that the i don't think we are and the reason is because the question for this core is whether the evidence renders any errors jury instruction promises beyond a reasonable doubt on the issue of official act the only jury instruction error payment she argues that there really was a car sale all of those arguments were arguments that the jury rejected its verdict and those arguments are not implicated by the error in the jury instruction on the definition of official act the only question for this w stylish but there was an alternative theory of all that the jury necessarily found that was not in any way connected to bat instructional let's turn to the embassador issue again game in these sorts of cases and you proceeded the government proceeded with respect to the alleged attempt to secure an ambassador ship might head considered those acts as themselves official acts which we know now in the wake of mcdonnell would not qualify yet well concluded all wise even if they had been given a proper instruction on the definition of official acts how about how would you suggest we draw the line between i support him in advice and and he talking you a juror of their conviction to make sure that the process works if you work at the least is that until the first couple of jurors that are question by the district court they seem to be you know the process is working he's you know got some different ideas but you know we're we're we're talking it through was in the statement to the court of deputy merely a cast is not credible these higher t all of the core of the jurors testimony about that issue including the jurors explanation of should one be his convictions i would also point out the return to the question from a moment ago  said i don't remember making the statements and the district or district courts and title to to disbelieve a witness who says after previous questions have been asked  court can consider their credibility finding as one factor among others justifying the district court's conclusion that the jury to she was refusing to deliberate and the other issues are here allegations of us to send it back i think it is always a harmless beyond a reasonable right i think it is not ronnie you are is correct that the jury was instructed on a stream of benefits theory of bribery which amounts to the government can prove these for those differentiation because i think that the legislative history shows that the statute was amended precisely to color those other institutions that were mentioned that is there are lots of places in one of the  to the services that are being rendered how do we distinguish the agency function here from other agents an escrow agent settlement if he and the entity transaction i think placed in the three states where committees authorize i kept in that way right in the forty eight other states including at the state in question here and it is it is it correct from  guilt argument but in fact there was no alternative theory in this case there's a single rider count a single set of instructions about what constitutes bribery and as judge smith pointed out the indictment and the government's evidence is there are three kinds of official locks that form part of the alleged pattern from which corrupt intent could allegedly good for their child on leak the official locks that they actually put tried a case on is being linked together to it makes it more likely that the jury would find perhaps that the ambassador acts were official acts and that there was an exchange there or to his alternative theory of guilt if the jury finds that either the curtain needing arcs from which a corrupt exchange could be in for it makes it more likely that they'll find that there's a corrupt exchange on the eighteen thousand dollar payment and perhaps a corrupt exchange between whatever the official act is and where they're left favoritism here they are instructed the way you find or don't find depending upon what you conclude the evidence shows is from a pattern from the the that the government is pointing to this tells us that the jury found a link between the eighteen thousand dollars and design sorry investment of their argument and post trial motions and is we get the money from our members who are our customers and we take that money and we give it to the settlement the attorney who is in all of the states so just as bad as as the government's counsel has acknowledged they don't think that differs in the three states from the other forty eight states is that they want to got a license so there could actually close the deal in their name as an agent on for anything but why does that matter you're asking us to quit financing with funding but when we're talking about the context of mortgage lending an amendment that was directed toward insuring the financial stability of mortgage lending institutions isn't the real agent for their members that's part of the services that they provide they can provide more services in those three states where they're licensed to do more things but they're doing it as an agent for their principle remember but let me conclude by saying if i  wasn't injection to the jury be instructed on the mortgage when the theory was this went to the jury with that theory intact even if it was a strategy change neatly through trial i was a trial counsel cyc i can't actually answer your question directly as interest and real estate coom it is not the entity that is financing or refinancing this debt that is its member credit it is the agent for the entity that is financing away from this and we know in this particular instance obviously as your questions and reversal is appropriate in this case because that questioning impermissibly compromised our client's fifth and sixth amendment rights with respect to the rico issue i'd like to emphasize the difference response there was but again there was no evidence of any brands of bad men in the enterprise as it requires more than the involvement in the fall