points entirely persuasive didn't seem like a fair trial to me frankly i had that the government's witness was made out to be a saint and your client was made out to be and  and the evidence that was allowed in or kept out was shaped to accomplish that as far as i can tell i also can't see any prejudice your guy stories were so ridiculous and self contradictory and changing i the story in this case for example the first piece of defense evidence which would have been the contract between mr jenner and mr manning critical evidence is he puts in these phony tax returns to get huge reserve tax refunds and then he tells all these crazy stories so i was working really waiting it was a pro forma and my wife sent him by mistake and i corrected it but he didn't correct it so months later and that's the the i r s for the third time that there was some kind of problem with the return they they let him know what the problem was and then he worked to fix it but none of this evidence was presented to the jury the jury didn't get to see the actual dealing with the funeral arrangements getting her affairs in order he came back in september it's corporate tax return time he felt corporate tax returns and his own amended return in october so any evidence that he attempted though before he was just too disturbed by the death of his ex mother in law between april and october to do anything about this well yes that she was not he was not in about her california they were in florida dealing with documentary evidence to support the existence of checks purportedly totaling ten million dollars while your honor the lower court had doubt i witness testimony by i'm a documentary  jenner i had to show the original was unaccounted for even though mr jarrett testified that what he had was a true and correct copy of the original i thought he wasn't trying to prove the truth of the fact that the terms  to several issues concerning mr jarrett's character mr leatherwing testified that mr turner i had a gambling problem that he had a bookie that he carried a gun that he threw eggs to people and that he had a temper conviction allowed all of this inflammatory e mail these alleged threats this throwing eggs in a car just a question of part upon question of improper character evidence to comment against mr gerald was the evidence that was kept out that the defense disallowed that evidence against the government's key witness it allowed and just a tremendous amount of evidence concerning mr geragos the lower court further limited mr but the lower court excluded all of those questions appellant also tried attempted to cross examine concerning a booklet that had been provided for the company to show this ongoing company but the lower court allowed it during the excluded every piece of defense evidence even with serious slants against the defense the jury was still not initially unanimous i don't think it's fair to say that given that if you would have questions what was the history in terms of the jury hanging and then eventually reaching a verdict the jury initially came back ten to two course they didn't state how it went they were given an allen charge and subsequently came back i know how long before they came back ten two to one how much longer after the allen charge they were both fairly quick mean the entire trial lasted two days i believe i think they came back t books or lectures that mr jeremiah i have read or gone to buy a lot of for want of a better term i'll call tax protesters this type of thing of you know asking for refunds based upon alleged payment is fairly common as you know as they and quote scheme whether any testimony at all in the trial to that effect that he had attended a lecture or had read a book about this sort of thing no there kind of conscientiously failing to pay or trying to get money from the government that this was his job was i'm sorry was he and rolled agent with the i r s i don't believe so hence he had a c p a license out of colorado i believe so he had a higher level of understanding than say the average person certainly  wasn't he had an awareness which i think goes to show that he certainly didn't think oh i can just put any number i want it was x return and i know the government's going to come back and give me millions and millions of dollars i mean if you knew how the system worked he knew what the checks were he knew how it would be scrutinized he knew that when he prepared these corporate tax returns based on just belief this money had been withheld and was paid to the general corporation  probably the only significant piece of evidence that was excluded that confused me and you are already know that i have the same problem with this case as the last one i can't see why the jury doesn't get to decide the case on all the evidence and i don't the contracts i couldn't understand the ground that it's not a contract dispute where somebody may argue substitution of pages or formation of the contract was never complex there was an offer an acceptance you just didn't have any issues where authentic ation mattered all that mattered was whether gerrard believed he had a well you're out of that particular document had a great deal of material in it including a very specific number that was used when the tax returns were prepared it was dated in in the year two thousand two it clearly was a very significant item that was a valid concern the the testimony that the defendant jarrett was giving however i believe that contract was correctly excluded although i don't believe that the issue was particularly well handled at the time of the best evidence grounds it was that he was excluded from lack of a sack cation is is my understanding and i would point out that while the courts seem to focus upon where is the original and we can have a copy i recognize that a photocopy is admissible much the same as an original however there is an exception there one of which is that if there is a serious question raised as to the authenticity of the document and the testimony in this case was that by the defendant that he had signed a contract and sent it to mr rather would who would then forwarded on to mr mandeville somewhere else in the world for mr mandeville's signature and he was then it was then returned to him apparently through mr leatherwood again but  are these signatures were indeed on the contract the issue was whether or not the contract actually been executed by this man named mandeville and mr leatherwood had testified that he had no contact with the defendant during this period of time any time after the year two thousand and in the excerpts of record on page four thirty seven is where the defendant said that he had forwarded this contract to mr leatherwood from mr lovell word to pass on to mr mandeville had then returned him this photo copy of the contract that seriously brought into question the the authenticity of the signature by mr mandeville on the contract what it was rather was testimony with respect to the contrary well i don't know that he dressed the contract specifically his testimony was that he had absolutely nothing to do with mr no contact at all which presumes that on the year two thousand and he never would have received that contract no courage goes to the purpose of the best evidence or all when you have these kinds of issues yes and i don't believe that the discussion in the record by the court is really the most illuminating on this particular issue but this particular document the contract  up and then the cross the letterman the cross of jerry enables the jury to decide which ones lying well i understand that your honor but the the contents of that contract is something the government did not feel should be in the hands of the jury  the contents of the large one page document which the sickly lists out the the amount of taxes that were listed on the the tax returns that were filed and we feel that that type of evidence because it's  document in the hands of a juror then gives further credibility to the testimony of the defendant which was inappropriate so i can see why the government would prefer not to have evidence before the jury that would lend any credibility to the defendant story but then usually isn't the test we usually don't just defer to the government's preferences in deciding these cases well correct but the government raised a valid objection to the admission that document and i believe it was correctly  from apple now so i don't understand the theory under which one hundred five was excluded that was allegedly the return he intended to file apparently was excluded on the basis should have been admitted in another issue the but the exclude the issue for me is why it should have been excluded it was offered it was not offered and as the return is filed  it was offered as the return he intended to file but didn't mean this there's i don't understand any objection to that against you admissibility i understand your honest question i do not have an answer to that i believe that the document could have been admitted certainly without air the point that i wish to make is that there was no prejudice to the defendant by the failure to admit that document because the defendant already testified that he had made a mistake and he had another reader and that was one that should have been filed and i don't see why that eliminates the prejudice juries often are very skeptical of what people say to them when they have an interest in lying to them but if they see documentary your honor and i'm admitting that i am at a deficiency here to to argue persuasively that this document should not have been admitted into evidence however what i'm pointing out is that it really adds absolutely pointed out initially to opposing counsel regarding the facts in this case are so persuasive in terms of this was a scheme that was orchestrated by the defendant that  his explanations for just create a bunch of confusion they're inherently inconsistent if he had known there was an error he surely would have figured that out on february twenty first three year three weeks after he filed that claim for the refund when he called the i r s and asked that what had happened to his three million dollars that he was expecting to have wired to his account and the person who took that call testified that one of the verification procedures they use when they receive these hot hotline phone calls inquiring about refunds is the amount of the refund so it is clear that mr geragos called the s on february twenty first of two thousand and three and ask where is my two point nine million dollars that should be wired to my bank account clearly if there was a mistake he would have known at that point that there was something wrong he admitted at trial that this seven point two million dollar and gambling loss that he claimed was erroneous that was false what did he say about this amazing phone call but to mr in phone call he said that he did as i recall he did say that he made the phone call that he was asked certain questions and that he was asked about the refund although amount when he testified i get it is it correct to state counsel that far as the government is concerned this is a guy in terms of what really was done filed a tax return claiming that he was entitled to three plus million dollars worth of refunds that the exclusion of evidence is basically just a little fly flex on the side there's really nothing that would bear upon the ultimate truth of this that fall tax return was father was attempt to get that much money is that essentially yes that that is true yet and i don't believe that most of the evidence that was excluded really would change much of anything at all the the fact is it was rather cleverly designed scheme in which at the very beginning of the year in january he filed two corporate payroll tax returns to buttress the claim which showed that this corporation which he controlled had withheld all this money which in fact it had not he then followed through with a tax return which reported this ten million dollars of income because you have to have the ten million dollars of income in order to have the three point eight million dollars of withholding and in fact if that had been the end of it he probably would have been do little or no refund but instead he included a false schedule c which claimed that he had a gambling loss of seven million dollars thereby offsetting this income and providing a huge refund which he asked to have wired to his a t i think the evidence on this matter is very very clear very persuasive i hesitate to call it overwhelming but it certainly borders on overwhelming evidence that this was a blatant scheme by the defendant no no evidence regarding an intent to flee however the evidence regarding where he lived and how you could get in touch with him was very sketchy when his wife was contacted she asserted that they were not on good terms this was we ask if it was in june of two thousand and three and she said she couldn't exactly remember when it was but it certainly allows the inference that it preceded the amended returns  the coming clean of the defendant in trying to find him the the agents were unable to locate an address for him and she said she had no knowledge where he was it turned out later that she was his landlord and was renting an apartment to her home to him in las vegas so it shows a contrivance to fly below the radar and sort of be filed they were returned says they paid him a salary of someone such as such and such an amount and held on that the federal withholding taxes and social security and such and such an amount correct now that the the details for an individual employee are set forth on a debit to form which he provided to himself the payroll tax returns are summary for the corporation for all of its employees however this corporation only have one employee and the amount that it paid this employee all within the fourth quarter of two thousand and two was represented to be the exact amount that he then reported as wage income on his tax return his personal tax return and as i said earlier the the tax that was only falsely ripped the corporation falsely says we paid millions of dollars ten well nine point nine eight five million dollars  then we share a falsely reports on his personal return they paid me those millions of dollars correct which from tax consequences would not help very well no it wouldn't  faults was a false for the seven point two million dollar gambling loss and it's critical falshood correct that along with the fact that for three point eight million dollars was never withheld and paid over to the i r s and somebody who has twenty five years of experience in preparing tax returns has probably learned that the i r s is not always able to associate a person's claim for refund with with with monies that were actually paid into the u s treasury but there was also no evidence i believe your opposing counsel indicated that would verify at least documentary evidence that would verify that ten million dollars had been paid there was no or no checks were produced not he records no photocopies no anything to verify that this money ever existed i've am tempted to address people not only with something it's a funny story partly because when he falsely reports that he received a whole lot more income than he did they actually more income than he did that's a funny little twitchin a tax fraud s very clever approach and usually what people say is i didn't or nearly as much as i really did yes so the only way to make money out of it is with the ridiculous gambling off quick correct that's correct is there some further explanation for why the corporate returns are part of a criminal scheme and not just crazy fantasy well they were they were  that he had actually received the income and that the income taxes withheld in fact your honor if that doesn't no good if an employer withholds money from an employee's wages and fails to pay it over to the government  the employee is still given credit for the income tax withholding so if your employer makes off with the income tax that they withhold from your wages rather than pay it over the government or an employer will still get credit for it and that's part and parcel of how the scheme was supposed to work but if you admit if you admit that you got the income even though you didn't it sort of takes away the benefit of the  that he would have done something the fact is he filed these signed under penalty of perjury the balts tax free here that was not for that and he subscribed for each he subscribed to each tax return and filed each tax return with the i s with respect to the alleged improper character evidence which i won't tell the court concerns me as well i don't believe that there is a significant prejudice with regard to  some sort of conclusion by jury that because the man had some anger problems that he therefore was a tax cheat and wait a minute i'm not sure i understand that you show a jury that a guy arms himself with eggs when he drives on the freeway as to that he can throw eggs at cars and arms himself with a gun just in case any of the drivers of the cars decide to do something about it i would think a lot of jurors would think i don't care what this guy did he belongs in a cage that's i understand your honor's point and i addressing this point in order to say that i did have some concerns about that because but the the question itself was really not objectionable the answer may have been improper and there was no motion made to strike that material from the record so i think he's handsome and your time has expired risk when you have some reserve time i just ask you as a stark i know you probably have other things you want to specifically for focus on there were a number of issues raised in your appeal which have not been addressed here specifically the denial of the request the motion  a change of venue the abuse of discretion on your motion in limine need to admit the twenty five year old left conviction of richard leatherwood the exclusion of the juror because the there were dressed in your brick and they were they were dressed in the prepared i think that there were a lot of issues in this trial that went against mr chair at that sort of show that this was not a fair trial and i heard the court mentioning well the government has a lot of evidence in this defense evidence is just kind of out there but every defendant is entitled to a fair trial every defendant is entitled to confront and cross examination every  a significant issue when you have a trial where every defense objection is overruled and all of the government's objections are sustained and the government gets to bring in all of this irrelevant prejudicial character evidence and the defendant's cross examinations are limited and the evidence every piece of defense evidence is excluded i don't see in this case that we even have the semblance of a fair trial i believe this court made his mind up and he acted to put on their case to tell their side of the story we were speaking of exhibit one one which was the employment agreement and we can we can come up here now and say well maybe this would  fact there was a contention or evidence there two out of the three parties never signed this document is that enough well mr the government never called mr mandible so you know was contact it meets the requirements even if mr garrett would have been allowed to try to authenticate it he could have met the requirements and i don't want now whether or not what weight should have been get then could have been something that could have been argued to the jury