when alleging that mr burials conspired as a fatal flaw how do you conspire without knowing your honor i mean what's the meaning of the word conspire in your view i agree with you that inherently in conspire you have knowingly but you have to look at that that doesn't that answer your entire argument if it's part of the word conspire incorporates unknowing requirement in other words it's just you can't conspire without knowing that you're doing it want to further the purpose of that agreement without knowing that they're doing it because you're out of the world conspires less certainty that sets up the mission and the other one that's why i invited you to give me a definition that somehow excludes the idea of knowing because the word agree when you read that when a grand jury reads that they understand there's a knowing element but my position is that the lay persons that comprise a grand jury will not necessarily know conspire means conspires more of a legal term than counsel why would the remedy for this be dismissal with prejudice after a conviction and without any objection having been made in the district court this is an imminently fixable kind of problem if there was any confusion  it's not waived because we have appellate review of that stricter standard because it wasn't raised the court level and that standard is that it's so obviously defective s not a charge by any reasonable construction and to amount to a miscarriage of justice and exactly an error so explain to me how this is a miscarriage of justice because of the confusion when it comes to the word conspiracy if you look at the juries trust fund for your list i mean you can say but i can't figure out who  juror your position seems to be that an indictment has to include not just statutory language statutory elements but also the explanations in jury instructions i think goes on a case by case basis depending on the word person that comprise a grand jury can understand they know that there's a knowing or intentional element in those but if even if you look in reading level do you are cabul a level do you think the average jury collectively has i don't think here that we're talking about an operation where the periodic shipments were between a hundred and five hundred kilograms of cocaine defendant might have been accidentally inadvertently involved in running a conspiracy with hundreds of kilograms of cocaine at a time you got that but with what this is about the miscarriage of justice here is because we don't know exactly what i've missed was present of the grand jury in order for them to return an indictment and we have to endure shergill of thought that says that doesn't matter once because of course you can't get a conviction until trial jury has decided beyond a reasonable but so there is that there's school of thought that says the grand jury errors washout or you get there the purpose of the grand jury is to put a barrier between prosecutors and right on trial congress without probable cause and it's already easy for them to obtain a grand jury indictment and by admitting knowingly not specifically telling the grand jury that it found it must knowingly conspire they're getting good of an element that people in the grand jury may think differently along we could see that in the landscape now i don't i want to preface this by saying there's nothing to do with my political views where you have as an example a presidential candidate who employed people who allegedly worked for the foreign government and you have a big portion of the population that is arguing that he is this presidential candidate conspired with a foreign nation and you have another big portion saying they don't and that's what i'm saying is the divide with not knowing what knowingly or not knowingly is part of an honor it's a more confusing word i believe that  big but there may be something that you could say conspired to do what but conspired requires a people and if you say the other people were supposed to do something different than what he got convicted of i don't know i mean i'm the court good morning your honor there is no other definition of conspiracy that does not include the requirements of knowledge and intent that is the definition of conspiracy that excepted in the case law that's contained in the in the jury instructions it is what the word means now i say i recall it correct me if i'm wrong this indictment tracked the language of eight forty six yes it did your honor so it did and it is not necessary for a for an indictment to spell out all the elements to use any particular words to state explicitly what i could convey implicitly or to define every term it contains those those  aspects of indictment writing as they don't exist what happened here is that the be indictment charged with using tracking the language of the of the statute charged the l all of the  and did so in a way that was not only not defective but was certainly not so defective as to fail to charge the offense so it's your position actually that if you charged that he knowingly conspired you'd be introducing redundancies into the indictment i think it would be redundant but i don't think it would be objectionably so i don't think it would create confusion here on necessarily but it i of course as judge hamilton points out the tickler facts of this case indicate that there is no no possible way that there is any potential problem with failure of notice or anything else given we can say something like