year old mrs called of lot as i was a schoolteacher here in puerto rico on the allegations were that she transported a fourteen year old minor of from her school area to and you know by motel the recall if i recall correctly he was of five then and one hundred and sixty five pounds he was an excellent play baseball player who has been contemplated to play in the mirror league wobbling along so he showed a lot of maturity and a lot of our conscious good conscious while he was talking to the court i personally didn't see any fear coming from him even his mother at the p chambers and we discussed that matter what about  laura's that he didn't fear her and the time and that he did not want everything wrong to happen to her so that tells you what was his feeling at the time that he was interviewed and then a couple good morning again your honour's for the record julian mcmahon just for the united states so is puerto rico the only place where this is a prosecuted within the territory you're in i do not have that knowledge i do know that that secondary type of transportation is only available in commonwealths territories or possession which would be constitutional territories i do not know if in the other constitutional territories the statute is utilized for that type of i mean by your office that's what i'm wondering is the like the one before these before the court in the other territories to my knowledge and you know why well it would have to be i would think that the office that prosecutes it would have to be where the transportation occurs so for example if there and if you're on i would like a twenty j letter to that effect we have no problem in doing so but i am privy to what our office has done and our office has used that due to the plain language of the statute and just to make a couple of additional points so so as not to rehash the that it was only around two thousand that these kinds of prosecutions are occurring in rico do you know if that's true or not to the best of my recollection it has been within the the two thousands i'm not aware of any case rico's new status would want its continued coverage but maldonado borderless also did something else it required when there is no where the act itself is silent either clear policy reasons or specific evidence that congress would continue would want this transportation with important legal to continue to fall under the man x purview and it's precisely what the government is saying that here we have that specific evidence we have this past unopposed it's arguably not a substantive change or a clarifying change it didn't expand anything that what congress at that time thought was going on crespo at that time had been good law for seventy that shows congress would want two thousand four hundred and twenty one to continue in puerto rico well this is where this case is different because we do have the protect act and there's two other cases there arguably are not all forest but that also support this conclusion possession to determine whether the statute is a political the court had no problem concluding the point that people felt squarely within the definition it's clearly not a state it's clearly not the district of columbia but it fell within the definition of yes your honor prior to trial the government because of the witnesses fear yes this was in the government's motion requesting the closed circuit testimony your honor that iteration of the question are you afraid in the in chambers com friends was asked multiple occasion also using multiple synonyms by the district court who was trying to get to the root of the inquiry because the root of the inquiry whether to allow close substantial in chambers conference where it where the minor not only said that he was nervous and uncomfortable but hugh there was more he said that it would cause him distress it would making him agitated that he would have fear of her standing there he recognizes now this is important that it didn't pose a physical threat but nonetheless his physical reactions showed that this was more than just general uncomfortable it's now the district  fourteen years of age was honestly taken advantage of by a person as trust by his teacher and at this point he explained in the court made in vivid findings on the record that his heart raced he had chest pains he put his hands to his chest when he was discussing how he was feeling he said that he was getting hot that he was flushed now the court observed these reactions by the defendant and that observation is afforded due deferen well your honor this is why the district court who had one on one and who was able to see him who was able to ask him the same question in different iterations here that benefit of face to face with the defendant he found the findings that he had are supported by the record and this choice between conflicting plausible interpretations cannot be clear are now getting back to what judge got away yes as his physical aspect i believe misses the mark here big an individual is has nothing to do with their mental state and whether i also submit to the court that that's irrelevant also success on the baseball field and your ability to get on a plane and travel to do something that you are comfortable with and it's very different from being in a court of law two years later seeing the individual that maybe now you have more of an understanding that abused you similarly his statements by his mother to show i do not your honor i do not the statements by his mother also miss the mark st of all they were said to the probation officer after a trial and importantly it's not what the mother thinks it's what the defendant feels and the fact that the mother said he wasn't afraid of her at that point he was never going to see her the conditions of her bail prohibited misquote of from having interactions with this minor  well your honor what it states is that the minor the statute itself just says fear it and the nd part of the statute requires some sort of psychologist evaluation but the st thing congress clearly found that a miner's fear is sufficient and what's important to note here is this is just one aspect of confrontation the face to face confrontation in this case all other aspects of confrontation were safeguard the defendant was able to see the miner testify via closed circuit and just to clarify what happened with the computer glitch it wasn't it was moment tain it was moment it was it was just for one moment when the government put on the elmo on the projector a piece of paper so at that time when the government put something on the piece of paper it projected that piece of paper as opposed to the camera and right when it was brought to the court's attention that hey we can't see the defendant there's no indication that the audio wasn't working it was just that the video of the projector was trumping the video of the close circuit television and when that happened the district court even instructed the government you don't get the paper there if it's an exhibit the jury will get to see it during deliberations so the only part of confrontation here that was curtailed after a finding by the court as mandated by th it's two way it's closed circuit so it's a different room with juries and you know the defendant is in the room with the jury and the prosecutor is also in the room i think it is just the minor with an adult attendant that is in a secondary room that is being projected to the courtroom and vice versa so if the miners want to see it just like they could in a regular courtroom they could avert their eyes but it's a two circuit closed closed circuit television and so through that only that one point a face to face confrontation was curtailed in this case because there was contemporaneous objections there was a lengthy cross examination  opportunity to cross examine what she took advantage of this cross examination was an approximately one hour the miner testified under oath and here we have the judge jury and go to were all it will to see the miner and his appearance and his demeanor he testified through the closed circuit so even if at the end of the day this was an error using the const the constitutional dimension of harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because all of the other elements of confrontation  preserved a new trial would not be warranted i see that i've gone over my time if there are no further questions i think the court