shannon and john tomasky on behalf of defendant appellate christopher compass when did appellant christopher campos realize that the deal presented to him and which he got his family involved in was part of a fraud and that's how this case turns i want to address to issues this morning both of which relate to that one question first the government rested its case on the idea that mr campos should have known there was a fraud here simply because he was a lawyer and i'll explain that cuts both ways because his experience as a lawyer led him to conclude otherwise and more importantly the district court refused to hear the testimony of christe permeate oh who is another lawyer who could have refuted this argument which again was the  government's case second the district court improperly refused to admit into evidence tape recordings that showed mr compost never admitted to fraud despite the fact that the government was able to introduce tape experts that purpose tape excerpts that purported to show he admitted to fraud this is crucial and that so with respect to that any recordings of your client in which he didn't admit to fraud would be admissible know your and all movies and put them into evidence because he didn't admit fraud no your honor what we would what we saw to admit at the beth the district court level were specific statements in which he denied the fraud in which he said there was no fraud why is that not hearsay  it's not hearsay because the statements in which he purportedly admitted the fraud are equivocal and if you look at the full tapes in context or at least the excerpts that we wanted to include they demonstrate that consistently tapes to show that he never admitted to the fraud to show that he consistently said i didn't know there was a fraud here i was i was a surprise offering them evidence that he did not engage in the fraud you them for the true your honor offered them to show that the tapes that the government introduced which they claim show he admitted to fraud aren't the whole story that he consistently said otherwise and that the out of context excerpts that the government sought to introduce and successfully did so aren't the whole story that he said more than what the government said he said and the few take the two together it becomes clear that he admitted no such thing he did not admit to the looking when he was just talking to his was i client ms alston he admitted to the fraud that he admitted that he knew all along there was wrongdoing but what the excerpts that we wanted to include show was that he did no such thing that he consistently told miss austin that he didn't know at the beginning that there was a fraud that he that he learned of the fraud as she did that for example he was led to believe by mr alvarez a mr to various particularly mr alvarez who is an experienced person in the livery industry and a leading person in that industry who had press articles written about him had explained to him that this was a legitimate business he explained that to ms austen in the very same tapes of the government introduced to show that he admitted to the fraud he knew that the representations made in the loan applications were false he knew that the cars weren't going to be kept by the loan applicant he knew that they were going to be used for livery purposes  innocent the whole process had a very innocent feel to it to mr campus first off i'm not asking about the false address you want to answer the false address your i'm asking you was he not aware of the false statements contained in loan applications about who was going to be owning the car and driving the car he was aware that your car doesn't it's not really the end of the story it's not because the process for taking these cars was much more complicated than that that was one small step in the whole process and what's going on here is he is led to believe by mr alvarez that this is a legitimate process that his experience as a lawyer including things that mr alvarez reminded him of in which for example  cars they were buying a car for themselves this was this had been totally evident from from his perspective right your honor he fell for it ok he it's easy to say that that should be obvious to you but there was another witness who could have testified and the this is the other part of the argument i wanted to talk about today came in later after all the cars had been had been purchase yes your honor but he was explained that part of the transactions but he certainly would have had access to knowledge and knowledge of what he was certainly would have had access and knowledge about the documentation about those transactions he could have testified unless he was brought in to do an investigation about about the past your honor that could have gone to the weight of his evidence if he had been allowed to testify he would have testified that he was explained by mr alvarez or he was a conformed by mr alvarez about the transactions how they worked and what was going on and he would have had a a wellspring of knowledge that was similar to and actually from a better vantage point than our client and it's not exactly the same you know your honor but same company and he was working for the same people but not exactly the same in terms of the knowledge of the akin to a second person who has a better vantage point or the same vantage point in us in a simple car accident case you know not just the drivers know whether or not the light was red or green he was in a position to know whether or not the light was red or green at the time of the accident and the government and the district court didn't allow him to testify and now i mean after there he didn't actually run or he's there at the time this fraud is still continuing to go on or led to the fraud that the government proved may please the court my name is saager robbie and i'm assistant united states attorney in the southern district of new york i represent the government on appeal and i represent the government in the proceedings below the district court correctly denied the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal as judge stated in her written decision to nine the motion for an acquittal they have been it's a trial overwhelmingly established that mr campers joined and participated in this conspiracy with full knowledge he told campbell's exactly how the scheme would work that they needed people with enough credit credentials to obtain cars under their own names as opposed to the business and that they were purchasing as many as fifteen to twenty cars in one single day mr in fact we acknowledged and before this court just now that he was aware of those facts and the lies that we've made to the bank in addition there is also evidence to trial that campus was there when his wife submitted the applications to the banks when she bought four cars and that he reviewed those applications before they were submitted those applications contain multiple false statements including the fact that it was the wife who was buying the cars and not the business the fact that the cars would be used for personal as well as the fact that she was going to be making the payments on the loans when he knew all along that there was certainly that all of that was falls for those reasons your honour's judge could probably correctly denied that motion based on the overwhelming evidence on trial now turning to the second issue with respect to mr miaow that was raised during the peel the proffered areas of testimony by mr campos for his mr my daughter's testimony were completely irrelevant and properly excluded by the district court as as your honor acknowledged mr miyamoto was not at the business at the time that the loan applications were submitted and in fact he was there several months after the fact and unlike the poet counsel states there is no proffer in from the district court as to the fact that mr alvarez explain the way the transactions worked or explain any nature of  of of how this conspiracy worked in fact the only proffer that was made was that mr miyamoto would quote would testify that after learning about the business he had no misgivings about its propriet and indeed would have considered becoming an investor himself if he had been presented the opportunity and quote that's at appendix one forty that makes clear that mr miata was never even presented with the opportunity to participate in this and therefore his knowledge as an attorney certainly was very different than mr campuses and was thus properly excluded by the district court at the recordings yes i'm turning to that now your hon to establish that all hours of the recordings were necessary to explain or to contextualize the government's six excerpts which totaled approximately thirty minutes in fact campbell's did not even provide the court with a summary of those recordings or even the transcripts of introduce were there spec two statements by mr campos in the context of we need to get miss austin's cars paid off because if they're paid off they becomes a victim of victimless crime and no one's going to want to prosecute this no one's going to be interested in this and that's the context in which the government sought to argue that the reason he wanted to pay off these cars was so that when you get caught where they are several of the only one was paid off the remaining that mr kerik was new he was under that this whole thing was under investigation by the f b i and so that that also lends itself to undermine his statements there is simply self serving hearsay testimony which this court is excluded several times holland tonight in which he describes what mr meowed would testify to and it specifically says that he would testify that after learning about the business he had no misgivings about its propriety and indeed would have considered becoming investor himself had the and had the opportunity presented itself to him so the idea that we didn't offer that as a relevant that he had no misgivings about them it goes back to what we talked about during my during my main argument he's there he knows the people he's involved there he wasn't there at and so that the idea that that he he he would have known exactly what was written in the loan applications is something that the record will speak for itself on but more importantly when mr me out o was at the office of mr alvarez he saw the  same presentation that mr that mr campbell saw which was among other things prominent publications in the livery industry which showed mr alvarez as a successful businessman they say that he became successful by upon someone he thought was successful in that industry was an expert and he had reason to believe so and that's why there was not a not knowledge of fraud that's your argument to the jury didn't buy it but there certainly was enough record right that would support a jury conclusion that when you have these many false facts staring you in the face that's in dish of crime and you have knowledge that we disagree your honor and more importantly had mr me out of been allowed to testify there was also another witness a car broker who was not allowed to testify and the one of the most damning things at the trial if you read the record was the recordings which the government chose to try to show out of context that mr beata admitted that he knew about the fraud all along and had the excerpts that the defense wanted to play been allowed to be played they would have shown that in proper context he admitted no such thing thank you