inspection which was very open area outside to the secondary inspection area outside the office i thought the test was that if an innocent person were in that situation without all of the factors that have been outlined you just have to be reasonably innocent yeah that's right and that's what that phrase actually is reasonable and recently innocent which is a kind of strange phrase it's true but i think what's interesting in this case is that disregarding the fact that it ended up being taught in mean in the water bottles and he had either made a false statement to a federal officer by possibly claiming that the item was water when in fact with alcohol or he had first declared it to the water to try to doesn't actually go into the fines and penalties but it speaks to that that you should only bring in no more than one liter of alcoholic beverages but what is interesting in this case i think even a completely innocent person taking out then that's when they then went to the next thanks to their inspection office area and then into it you had a smaller area which was the primary are the secondary office and i think that the physical locations well in the grand scheme of things the ten by twelve room with the counter isn't that coercive but going from primary to secondary outside secondary inside it you know inherently getting it to be more coercive then it's they've just been outside and they have been interrogated were you by the water ok the interesting thing about that question in that it is at that point interrogation because under in this rhode island versus in this we know that it's any question or statement  one is the jury knows the stuff comes in ten milliliter files at least for cats and the second thing they know is this guy has it and water bottles funny containers can they infer circuit but it's in the d c circuit which is united states versus stevens and in fact to use the circuit court found that it was insufficient evidence even though mr i think it was in the crate was that codefendant not mr stevens had five hundred eleven dollars in cash on him it was in a high high drug area a high crime area he had five point nine grams of crack cocaine and there was expert testimony that five point nine grams of crack cocaine was a lot of cocaine and they still found that that was in like i said isn't a very known substance and and the government could have found someone to testify about what illegitimate use and about that this clearly was for distribution p you know i don't know quite how to handle this but i was kind of wondering about his quote well about the judge's ruling that he wasn't qualified basically the guy was mostly self taught  there are things that i went to school and things that i was self taught hardened and a lot of the things that were soft taught and i actually know more that when i go to school instead of searching the internet myself and reading everything of interest the professor the internet or the teacher and steelies searches the internet and he tells me what he thinks is of interest right now and it's usually a subset of what i would have read and it's not original sources i'm just getting with the future says about other  sources why shouldn't this expert have been allowed to testify and does that matter can we consider that well i don't think that it not i think the government did not raise in cross appeal that their government that their witness should have been able to testify about they don't have to cross and in criminal cases if the judge improperly kept it out i suppose we could say it's improper for future use but if the evidence isn't in front of the jury isn't that the end of that as far as well and that would be my argument that to be honest i haven't really looked into that specifically but what's interesting is that i don't think that it's really fair to say that you know the government didn't have the right expert well they could have gotten another one involved in having these seizures can mean investigations than this person particularly called and the person they happen to call just wasn't qualified enough at least according to the judge and according to my argument as well you may place the court my name is christopher alexander of this united states attorney representing the united states in this matter yes there are three issues that are presented here today first concerning statements second concerning whether little out of order because the issue that interests me the most sufficiency of evidence purpose of distribution basically i'm willing to go with the government on the proposition that if it's really a lot of ketamine compared to what a person would the trial isn't going to support the burdock i assume we all agree on that right now not again and there's nothing for i do we also get is nothing for it if it should have come when the judge or some scary reason check it out well it still isn't going to if evidence isn't necessarily presented in the cocaine cases indicating that there is a large substance a large amount of cocaine at the core can certainly take additional notice of the fact that this is a large medical wait a minute maybe we can but he's still entitled to a jury trial right and under jackson versus virginia he may even get a jury that says we just don't feel like convict well and there jackson be virginia the question we're supposed to ask any reasonable juror have concluded from the evidence presented to the jury that this want to take a four pack of painting or anything about the can i mean it was such that it was was beyond a reasonable doubt for distribution well beyond what we don't know with the experience of the individual jurors or certainly looking at the guidelines themselves the guidelines themselves also indicate that but i think we're supposed to say reasonable juror infer from the evidence right and what every soldier could infer from the agave looking at as your honor pointed out earlier the evidence that was presented to the jury indicated that these are distributed to fit that an area and claim another thing about casts their metabolism to different we don't know exactly how they work but probably even more important have value and dogs those who are actually much higher than humans even though the dogs are smaller and i just i don't think they know anything about how much ketamine you need to get high welcome then from from the a ten millimeters for a chat yes or r and certainly but how do they make any inference about people you know it sounds like we're in the interesting philosophical debate about jurors are not are supposed to be a tabula rasa and yet they're not supposed to be   posed to bring all the information they have in their own hands and i don't know how one cracks cracks that particular problem but it sounds like that's what you're saying well any juror with now that he takes distributing it to you that feel legally that again he is already a controlled substance in the united states and he is intending to distribute that to whether it be individual that the mistake we're making the logical error is to say well distribution would be illegal distribution for the use of human beings and it could be that he's buying illegal distribution for the use of the normans and the doctor doesn't say that it can't be that kind of delinquent so therefore the jury can say well we know what the dosage unit is for a catch this guy must have been doing it for illegal box or someplace like that some innocent looking means of hiding their stash even if it's personal use their should doesn't have to be a commercial stash for them to want to hide it and i  don't think again getting getting back to the amount here at the core can turn a blind eye to what was presented it was three hundred or three thousand five hundred milliliters of ketamine again looking at my problem is i don't know if it's a lot of ketamine going that's just it your honor when when dealing with cocaine again you don't know as you indicated before you didn't know until you got to the course what with the large amount of cocaine but you know now as a result of scene cases and what has come down again it's defense counsel pointed out ketamine is a newly scheduled substance and looking  jurors the jury certainly could assume that this was a large amount of ketamine and the court can also make that assumption based on the evidence or the law that's out there concerning the guidelines of the court we jury right and what the jury credit for is that this was a large amount again a large amount doesn't necessarily have to be in the evidence to say to be presented to the jury it's just is there a larger amount here and here there is  the custody issue as the times that the question about this substance and he was asked what he was doing  thousand dollars worth of jewelry that at that moment the inspector knew that there was there had been a crime committed namely that that's why forty five violation now at this point in the helmand case the inspectors didn't know that him had committed a crime it's a little is a positive result for the cademy but the positive result was actually preceded by the defendant's statement that it's kevin so at that point once  get at the time the substance was being tested there are three things that could have happened that the test could it came back and it would have been water and nothing would happen it could have been alcohol and would have been administratively handle and the defendant would have been free to leave or finally it could have been a non positive and the defendant again would have been free to leave the only result that would have prevented him from being free to leave is a positive result they don't bust him for minor i a federal prosecution that typically takes place of what somebody you typically it is has done of the ports of entry consistent with united states versus blue there is this prosecuted administrate of which i was thinking kids probably come back  another location or anything else along those lines their possessions and everything was sitting in there with that in that in that same room and it's important to know that mr ryan was also present his friend he had three over three hundred fifty times what ordinarily would be in a ten million lives and he was great actually did look it up on the net had to see how much it takes to get high and twenty five to one hundred milligrams seems to be the dose so really is a lot of ketamine but i know perfectly well that the jury's not allowed to look it up on the net during deliberations that's right your honor and again the district court made a determination problem with that is that it's the stretching of the line is that the government only presented that you know it was three thousand five hundred fifty three millimeters and that usually comes in these penalties or bile that the governing council mentioned that asked friends you know buying what's close to the dosage unit of aspirin you go to costco or one of those warehouse store you can buy big giant thing of it and for less money and you keep it for yourself you're not necessarily selling it on the black market or anything like that it's because it's cheaper that way lot of sense for a bit for the way that the case proceeded and the problem with that is to if they were going to make that claim then i think that would be bring up the problems that are addressed in my third argument which is  that the government we would have had to know was whether it's a narcotic or non narcotic substance and which is the legitimate use exceptions would apply if he was i don't know how that would really work if you're to be distributing it illegitimately but ninety two a that one fifty two a is for a narcotic substance and there you have to have been for the non narcotic i think that that's more and clear it just says that is it is important pursuant to such notification or declaration if there's something there then the instruction should be given because it's better to leave the decision up to the jury than to the judge and and i think that that that's really the whole point obviously my my stronger arguments are as to the distribution count and  rifled through by two customs agents then patted down they had their i d s told not to be told to stay on the bench and was sitting watching while they started pulling substances out of his out of bags and was testing it and was questioned while the testing was going on the fact that went through the bags at one point while they were standing out at the table but then they put them into a nor enclosed area and they'd perform the pat down still had the idea you had them sit down and say there and i think really that what