lay at the government's request in the court approved lay and instructed the jury that they did not have to prove that attended actually engaged in any sex act at all with anybody and he is serving a life sentence for what is court asked us to consider a couple of days ago in an order look at look at how also shows that my ms this poster has cited some cases from other circuits that r statute supports your construction that this was intended like the other clauses that the special maritime interpreter introspection in the prison caused to also go with the requirement of an actual or attempted sex act yes and to the extent that these data can be read two ways i think you know classically we look at at the legislative history and history both those statutes out and then they cut the commentary by the various senators and representatives who passed it the government is fairly chaotic and as a consequence and it's a poor country this was a is a poor young then and less and count three we don't know it or he it's telling i think that when he was testifying with the st question that the u s attorney asked every single one of the alleged victims was on what's your date of birth and an endless stumbled he got it wrong and they had to be corrected by the u s attorney not the year but the day  eighteen but there was there was no uncensored and they and i think you just can't infer from the from the record that he was under under twelve and in any event the court clearly instructed as that had to that each count is to be considered separately  there to be a reasonable doubt as to whether he was under twelve though the jury would have to infer that he might have been off you know more than five years as to what was true date of birth was that newt is there anything that would have supported such a did not have to establish that there was any victim at all and so although you haven't argued this if your statutory construction argument is correct discount even charge an offense or all the essential indictment is county deficient yes you argue that counts even counted in and intended to do so if you maintain that position tell to the sex act attempted on an attempted sex act as opposed to an attempt to cross state lines that obviously wasn't the government was arguing but in the in the can't be read to that way i tend to he was a resident can what he had and the government prove that he did not prove that he was in a state of travelling on their argument basically is that he travelled look course he travelled he was born in united states and he was a missionary in cambodia and he got there by travelling very poor country and was required to travel to as a part of that mission he needed to raise money he needed to go to neighboring countries to buy supplies akimbo he didn't have it you know and given that the level of referred to in numerous facebook posts that are in evidence here of cambodia it was his home he moved around the capital city three times with us mission and he had no no i conduct elements because the court had to decide that on the issue in order to resolve the case why aren't we down why only by the holding that the essential conduct elements include case when you look at the instructions that were actually given in the prior case they are just that the that across the state line with the intent to commit a sexual act that's what the district of oregon on was the compelling that a statute before this amendment federal law as to types of sex with children in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction and in certain prisons and then because of a horrible event involving their girl this new beginning of the statute was dropped in by legislators and i just see nothing that would indicate that it was dropped in to punish crossing a state line as opposed to either cross the state line you're within a special maritime and territorial jurisdiction or in certain prisons and you have sex or attempt to have sex with a child what is there and you know the does a life sentence on this count and i think that that counsels point in a great brief because they had no incentive to say to the jury that anybody was actually not under twelve because it wouldn't have made any difference the only thing that mattered the way the jury was instructed was the defendants in town i mean given that the government you know i just i'm very sympathetic to the defendant's argument that this can't be harmless error in the circumstances here the way the government was over twelve at some point and that's again why we use the special verdict form and it is the age sixteen because that in statute such an extent they wanted to say are you even if it jury you find that he had sex with children he never intend to have sex with children under the age of twelve he had intended to have sex with the older children at your niche and there's plenty of testimony in the record of the difference between might or victim three who is considered one of the younger boys versus many of the other victims including his brother who  the older boys so there was an incentive to argue that there was no intention to have sex with someone under the age of twelve and so if you're wrong about the statute does count able to charge if you recall or if you know the legislation would establish new federal jurisdiction over sexual offenses against children when a person commits a crime after crossing state lines within and of committing i think the problem reading of the statute is that it covers travel with intent without actual proof of the sex act and i said i would go with the reason he had six that allowed circuits on the interpretation statute and that is obviously the interpretation two his ages at that time being a and describes his family history and this is again produced by the orphanage run by mr johnson so the notion that there was some dispute about his age and again just a look at the picture makes clear that this was a very traveling at the time of the illicit conduct and that's because mr johnson yes the government said he's always going back to cambodia he's also always going back to the united states he's going back and forth and back in court and yes is it retrains the united states in part to raise money yes so that he can return to cambodia and continue to live in the orphanage where he's repeatedly raping the boys in his care so pet day well it did change how we clark does not say that we have to prove that he was not a resident of cambodia they tell us as we have to prove he was still traveling and we did and that evidence is cited through our brief and again there's charts of the  the critical distinction between match and this case is what we have here is a juror who was planing some expertise that other members of the near panel have no idea what that expertise are they don't even know what her job is because that was is that the district court there continues to clarify the expertise of the member of the air panel and the phonier panel member says specifically that the he witness in that case the child victim has no reason to lie and they decide should i ask more questions about this specific issue or should i simply remove this juror and perceived he removed this juror proceeded and the parties proceeded and that's multiple questions generally not about the specific buyout smile comment but  jurors ability to be fair and they all come from they could be fair and on this record i don't think there's a basis for berthing so counsel your view is that if the court had serious any more questions that could have made it worse absolutely i think it's hard to tell specifically from the record but on the drive record that there is some hints that this particular juror was not pleased to be there in a somewhat angry this comment alone makes you wonder what else t guarding that and the parties would have had the ability to debate whether that would make it worse or not but the defense counsel didn't do that didn't even ask for this jury to be struck or cause judge make change simply stepped in as one question can you be fair when the juror said no excuse the juror on his own motion for cause and again there is no request at this point to state that in you panel that group of sixteen there's no request for any other limited instructions from either side and so the parties moved on and again the jurors confirmed and were instructed repeatedly that they needed to decide a case on the ins and that they confirmed they could be fair no case that says every time a juror makes an offhanded comment we need to start all over this is a rare case where it was a smaller group but you know typically we're talking about all or much larger group of the your panel being there that was the rule we constantly starting out with jury selection that's time you allow the district judge who hears the comment who sees the jurors to make a decision as to whether that remedy is required and in this case of course as mcshane was doing that of his own accord because there was no request thank you i'm at the the jurors own the five jurors that heard it and whatever they might have said in the jury room we don't know that they didn't spend the entire trial watching the defendants seeing if you smiled that matching with the other case the match case is not always truthful in this case she did indeed very very specifically qualify herself she spent eleven years working with a one thousand sex offenders and put a one instruction might very well have sold the source of confusion problem but without it uncorrected that that expert opinion simply was out there for the jurors to consider  was he still traveling not that he was traveling he is a missionary that was required to raise money he came to the united states about twenty percent of the time that twenty percent of his yearly time that he was here in the united states virtually all of