please the court chief justice would chief judge would your honor i'm here today want to sufficiency of the evidence claim on behalf of my clients maurice greer mr green was charged with a couple wal mart robberies back in the southern district of consideration under these circumstances is that mr greer his brother was the star witness for the government under these circumstances and mr williams came in and blamed his brother for everything the brothers daryl williams that is correct favor without disregarding the jury's credibility determination of the testimony of green and orc men who say that it's greer who's the robber not williams and also the testimony of the people from the  kokomo robbery he's not involved in the nd indianapolis robbery that these people may all be difficult people right but the juries make those determinations yes your honor i understand that and i think what a comparison as cross examined when i cross examined one of the witnesses with fall from this he pointed out townsville that the two of them a very similar and color shape size and things of that nature and so the jury knew that right there during is that they were brothers and yes the jury was able to understand that they were paternal brothers and that the jury was also in a position going to court trial to see both my client who was seated next to me and also mr williams who was that it was at the if you if you assume i mean this is a different a different way of putting judge would question but i'll let you react assume that the jury credited the testimony of denise or kman and daryl williams williams testify against davis on that gets back to that robbery absolutely ok and so if the jury credited their testimony is that enough in your view as a legal matter yeah i think so you got to but the thing is is that your client is greer my client is of mr williams and put put press in himself in pressing this issue before the court put my client in a rd that position is so what if you remove him from the equation the question then becomes would would they have made the same conclusion and and decided that  on behalf of christopher davis we do not believe there is sufficient element of actual or threatened violence in this case with regard to the august th two thousand and fifteen robbery and that's because of course according to mr right i'm sorry she testified to the contrary well what she testified to i believe according to the timeline is that they got together an initially and decided that they were going to figure out how to rob the wall because of course this workman was an employee of wal mart and she was familiar with their security procedures that you know for i think i just i understood her testimony on that august th to be look this just wasn't a show or an act or anything i was i actually was in fear in fear when this guy was pointing a gun at me williams a suit getting out so in july of two thousand and fifteen she goes to the movies has a conversation with chris davis and she says hey look i i really don't want to be part of this i think we should talk about forgiveness and cetera that's in mid july of two thousand  and then a month and a half later davis calls her up on the phone while she's working and says hey get ready he's coming so was she expecting it on that day to happen no did they ever was there any evidence that they had had any further conversation or she had said look i'm not going to do this i mean i think the guy said he loved him feeling uneasy about this i think she would which talk about forgiveness but you know did as the government points out on page twenty two it's brief granted before the  robbery but nonetheless people probably wouldn't forget this davis tells her quote they will kill you if she decides to talk about what's been going on surely people don't just casually disregard that kind of language and so when she gets the call on the day question on this twenty eight day she said different shift at this point why couldn't a jury think that that was the kind of see or maybe she's gun to make it look like this is an armed robbery that's why i didn't yuri have to think that all she knows he has the gun i mean i think seems like a lot of people might not feel that comfortable with a gun being brandished in front of them true except for the fact this wasn't the st occasion she knew the robber she had planned robberies with him maybe not this specific one on the specific day but she knew that they were having discussions about robbing this again know i got in that seems like a perfectly good jury argument to me but the jury why did the jury have to accept this characterization well because i think her actions speak louder than her words here does she say yes i was afraid he might use it against me absolutely and count on it not contradicting that but when you look at her actions she's so comfortable with him and williams is so comfortable with her that he sets the gun down and they proceed  to it she did nothing other than have that conversation with mr davis about trying to pull out of that conspiracy she called the police she didn't quit her job she didn't tell her manager she took no steps remove herself from that conspiracy and in fact if you look at her stipulated factual basis that she signed in her case she agreed she was a coconspirator up and through august th of two thousand and fifteen but i'm not aware of any rule that well are you arguing that there's a rule that putting someone in or who is also properly characterized as a coconspirator is not legally sufficient for the hobbs act can you repeat that is there still force or violence if the person who is see yes where's a case it says that we don't have one that's what makes this case a little bit unique because we have a we have a coconspirator we get who assigned facts under penalty of perjury admitted to the district court she was in on it she knew ahead of time it was coming or the possibility was coming she had been previously robbed before she knew the robber william said she knew he was going to have a gun she helped plan it i mean if you look at his his transcript and you've got your say she's in on it you mean if you read her testimony of saying i'm completely in on the august th this was all an act on my part i wouldn't say that it's an act but certainly that she she feigned the threat of of actual or threatened violence here i think right so she helped you rob the store basically did you come in contact with anyone else so anyone else to go on no there was nobody else there no one else was threatened so under this situation we do not believe that element is there and that mr davis should be acquitted of those two counts thank you very much was only one who testified that she was threatened but she also testified that she withdrew from the conspiracy but you would never count that says withdraw i've seen the government argue about how hard it is to withdraw from conspirac and i'm telling you this isn't it you know you want you know you go call the police or you go announce from the rafters that you're you're withdrawing she dies expressed discomfort with what the conspiracy is doing but and williams made to her workman testified that she called davis on the phone after the initial discussion about doing a nd robbery and that she told davis very soon after that initial discussion that she and not want to go through any further robberies and then she testified about another time when she and davis went to see a movie together and she told davis about the movie's message and suggested that they should be honest injured se is forgiveness and at that point davis said if you tell anyone they will kill you a clear use of threats to coerce or men so even if even if  containers right at that point she testified that she was in fear she felt she didn't have a choice she felt that if she resisted she could be shot by williams that fear was entirely reasonable and the reasonableness conspirator question that i make that distinction the distinction the case law seems to draw is that the fear has to be reasonable so if if if if d the coconspirator was so closely involved with the other actors that no jury could find that the theater was reasonable then that might be a different case here nobody testified that workman was not afraid williams testified that his showing the gun george meant was a threat that he intended it as a threat testified that she was afraid the security of video was fully consistent with that testimony and the jury believed the testimony of ortman and williams that this was a true threat so and there's no idea issue preparation as well as the scheme from all three robberies kashrus found davis apartment ok and there is plenty of other evidence including cell phone location evidence and g jury also saw the civic the security videos which great help then corroborate the eyewitness identifications and the jury was also in the best position to judge the argument from the defense that williams look video during the st of the run what does that matter i mean if the witnesses are saying it's greer you know actually it's seems to me that's the moment that's important the witnesses are saying i know it was greer who was involved in the june th robbery in september th robbery i mean sitting there in the courtroom i suppose anybody could probably tell the two people if they're just quietly sitting there but the witnesses didn't express any hesitation did they know they did not for those reasons or the court as over the questions yes that you were all right thank you mr darcy i think you saved a little time i just i just wanted to point out one thing counsel said that this work was the only one who testified what i think the record is clear she was the only employee present there was no one this was started the way it does after she's in the night shift right coming or someone like her who is as closely involved as i kind of reiterated earlier and if the court would look at her stipulated factual basis which is under cause one hundred and sixteen c r fifty six it's document number