is an essential jurisdictional element of the offense he was charged with there was absolutely no proof during the jury trial that mr taylor was it in role to member of any native american tribe there were no tribal certificates no tribal romans no evidence in regards to that on that that is correct he does not need to be but in addition to the fact that there was no failure to show enrollment there entitled to and the you know the appropriate inference right there was enough and i believe that the answer is not the evidence this is the evidence of whether or not he was indian he was the second cousin it's like a family tree here frank it's a little confusing but i think what we do see when we look at that is that the evidence of genealogy of indian genealogy is very thin in other words we don't know what is a grain of blood we don't know anything other than that there was evidence at the trial that he had lived on the reservation on and off for periods of time there was no evidence there and there is no evidence to suggest that if you live on the reservation you or well the problem with that is does that mean that if you are one one hundredth of an indian right well i think that there has to be more than just a drop of indian blood i think when you look at the case law and you look at also what congress has done and and looking at all of the other ways in which indian as is the find and all the other programs you need to look at more of the first writers why and that's the only link here to whether or not he's an indian i don't think that growing up on the reservation in and of itself and the government didn't really specify exactly how long he spent on the reservation as a trial where he lived there and came back to he came back to that area yes at which i think it's very different than saying i'm back on the reservation as opposed to i'm back in l idaho and there any other questions from the time thank you good morning my name is nancy cooke i represent the united states in this matter united states versus larry gene taylor first of all counsel and i thoroughly agree that the government failed to prove by direct evidence but clearly the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the defendant was an indian starting from the end sort of moving forward counsel during her closing argument and the evidence in mind i mean is that pretty much what we've stated that prince i mean he went he lived on a reservation he laughed he came back to the area because he wanted to get back to his roots or something there were some statement along those lines i think and then we've talked about the genealogy so that would make them at best an eighth or less well i disagree on one point with counsel regarding grandchild's wife which is miley lawyers mother there is no evidence she is not too full blooded but i can't say that there is any evidence that she was miley lawyers mother well what is the evidence my lawyer the defendant grew up on the nose pierced reservation according to my lawyer she says she's known him all his life when he was a little boy there was a scenario that winning and regarding that  lawyer and mr taylor's mother spent time together cook together they she gave her an example of the kids doing things and she was a part of it when he was young his own testimony as you stated was that he came back to reestablish family relations he stated that to tom pollock at the time he was question regarding the affluence of hand he said he wanted to redevelop those relationships prove that a defendant is an indian and the law and as time passes using the bloodline as a means is more and more distant to a full blooded anyone in the united states of enrollment is just one way circumstantial evidence can prove it and you should look to the totality of the circumstances which the jury did and they found that he was in india the united states cited in its brief  article by cullen regarding this specific incident and i know the courts have read that and i don't feel any reason to basically go over that any more than what unless you have any specific questions regarding that where he talks about is is with the family members which he has denoted he wanted to come back to the reservation and reestablishes relationships and his lawyer justified he lived there as a young boy he came back and lived with his aunt all on the reservation  took place on the reservation and i think one thing that the jury did consider was the fact that what was involved in the crime or indian artifacts this whole episode volved around indian artifacts with the indians involved in it being this lawyer as the victim and mr taylor as the defendant who stole those items and sold them if there's any other questions i'll be more than happy to answer them thank you very much sufficient to show that mr taylor was an indian under purposes and under the provisions of the major crimes act again the only thing we have here is a very limited amount of genealogy knowledge regarding  they present enough evidence that's legal legally sufficient to show that mr tenet was native american you know our position that they did not thank you