with somebody and the ninth circuit says well that's ok because you're basically involved in this concerted action to bring the person to the left right and there are cases where there's something i'd say to induce is that for example some of the united states by the car and so they'll be brought to the border and indeed to get in that second car after say they cross the canal or something then you're part of that bring to a fence and you haven't even and i didn't but in this case we don't have any such fact the government's argument is that philippe her boyfriend in mexico is the editor and a better or the principal and he can be neither although the case law doesn't indicate that there can be extraterritorial jurisdiction and thirteen twenty four cases for actions of such an interesting or in a can or a conspiracy is charged that's not to not it's not true for the brain to offense boyfriend philippe had she had driven a car for him before and material witnesses were found in that car in the trunk so in this case she he asked her  elected in this case to proceed only on principle but they knew that the evidence was weak and so they decided to they wanted to part ways and as you can see the court can see from closing argument and the way the case was presented that the government wanted it both ways they wanted to argue that the person who is really culpable with philippe and that sweeping set this whole thing up and that because she was homeless you know she would do whatever it took to make sure she didn't stay on the street and so she drove this ban for him and because she knew that he proceeded on principle and the court said well when you do that you have to prove that the principal has the specific intent of financial tape for financial gain gain sotto void munoz the government to an end run around proving financially gain from it the argument was that while she didn't want to be homeless and he had put her up in a hotel and so she would do whatever it took to not be homeless so you are in for roles that government  there was an agreement that notes would be read over the phone and that if there was an objection that would be done in open court but that never happened in this case and said to the united states without telling any of the attorneys about th other part of the note and and without giving me an ability to put an objection on the record then told us about them out when there was a verdict and the other problem with this procedure was you think the procedure is just flat wrong have the problem with the press the other problem with the procedure is nowhere in the record does it say when the note was given to the guy it's nowhere in the record does it say when the judge respond to the first part of an out so that means the government can't possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that can affect the outcome because it could have been five minutes before the verdict it could have been the first day that the government speculates in a footnote in their brief that it was probably the second day but they can't prove when it was and therefore they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt it didn't affect the jury's verdict embedded in every federal indictment and this court has specifically held that in thirteen twenty four cases the government does not need to elect between the theory of principal liability and aiding and abetting  liability i think the argument in this case is a clever one but it's simply not it's simply not a pluggable that was evidence of both and this court has clearly held that the government is not required to choose one or the other and just as the government is accused of charging aiding and abetting in order to get out from under munoz converse only you know the defense would like that their clients to be charged as principals only so that they can come from within the confines of munoz so the motives are actually the same on both sides but in this case i think it's as i as i pointed out in our brief you know there was there was  in compass an actual physical transport to the border which of course ms wilson did but of course philippe did not do and that in that case clearly states that it's not the reading of the phrase brings s is there and that i mean that would be in every case when encouraging or inducing also be aiding and abetting in every case and if that's the case why would congress have made it a separate offense because he was for support where is the there was and i think that there was evidence of her personal financial gain that of course there's the financial gain in that respect as well i mean this was i think a case where financial still feel its case is is clear on that and that the whether or not those acts took place outside the united states immigration cases are unique in that respect that it can reach conduct that  understand your concerns i i think and i think in this case those concerns are are allayed given given the strength of this given the strength of the case if there are any other questions how did all no no no and i think that they gave you they would respond because if you respond you could do the wrong thing and getting what exactly so right exactly right exactly so you want them to respond well and it's you defense did know that it was you know would have asked for mistrial i think that the judge did explain that you know they weren't even close to that point because of course the jury had said that it was hopelessly deadlocked were nowhere near that and would have simply asked that the court repeat counter balance to the allen charge and he gave it at the outset so there's really nothing else that he could have done that he hadn't already done and i think the phrase in case actually i on the united states versus your sheet a case this court construed the term bring to ordinary natural meaning to convey lead so she conveyed the lead she carried to convey lead kerry to come along from one place to another to escort her to a company so the only one of the that doesn't describe exactly what miss wilson did as the driver and of course her theory with this she interpretation and looking at what the word brain means you look at the natural definition all the words around it and it certainly wouldn't be a proximate cause it would be the direct cause of the principle in this case sixteen of the five rape t she said that since there is no indication that congress intended the alien smuggling statute to reach activities outside the territorial limits of the united states so despite the government's argument that it should congress hasn't said that it does this court concluded that the individuals who had transported the aliens from mexico to a location on the high teens had not committed any crime within the jurisdiction of the united states as there was no the court concluded that the defendant had not could not be held liable as an aider and abettor for attempting to bring airlines and reverse the convictions on the count as far as  mistrial so that was the very first time i could object and the judge's response is cryptic his response sounds more like it's responding to the other part of the now because it wasn't until then that the judge allowed me to was that someone was in there and i wanted him to tell the jury was it's not just someone but that that person had to be an alien and so i put on the record that other things that i wanted the judge to tell the jury but that was the question thank you very much thank the counsel for your argument this morning united states versus