court representing fernando korea and i'd like to try to reserve two minutes of my time for a battle your honour's mr korea did not act with the intent to do something on lawful that day when he broke into the federal building if he had why would he have called the police on himself it simply doesn't make sense during closing arguments the government reduce their burden of having to prove that specific intent by improperly arguing that non accidental and non mistaken conduct combined with the fact that a reasonable person would have known that breaking a door that they didn't own was illegal was sufficient to prove a willful mens rea or i would argue that this case is not about a what a reasonable person would have done in this situation it's about what mr career was doing what was in his mind when he acted that day and not accidental and not mistaken conduct is simply not sufficient under the law for willfulness furthermore the district ruling on the motion for new trial abused its discretion when it decided that the two examples that the government provided in closing were sufficient to relay the proper intent standard to the jury for example if the district court decided that a trip and fall the examples government provided of a trip and fall or mistakenly not knowing that that door was not his home was sufficient to translate to the jury that mr currier had to know that he was acting in a manner that was unlawful at the time that he committed the offense this is simply conduct is unlawful and the portion of that that's challenge in this case is what was the evidence that he acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful were there were two primary types of evidence or forms of evidence  that that support supported that conclusion by the jury first it's evidence that supports one of two factual findings which together these two factual findings add to the rational inference that he knew his conduct was illegal so  of those findings first it's evidence that shows that he intentionally broke the door and the fire announce your panel and second it's evidence that he's showing that he knew where he was and he didn't own the door or the fire and i see your panel the evidence of each of those things is fairly clear for the first one there's a video of him doing it striking the door and striking the panel and the evidence showing that he knew where he was and he didn't know in the door where the panel is evident from the audio from the nine one one calls referring to his location and providing the address i submit it's rational to conclude from those two showings that he intentionally broke the door on the panel and that he didn't and then he knew he didn't own them that his conduct was he'll be equal because some conduct is sufficiently blatant that  any evidence that showed that he was aware of what he was doing and not just completely in a in a in utter haze of senselessness is evidence that would support a conclusion that he knew his conduct was unlawful so any evidence that showed that even though he's saying some arrange and irrational things on this phone call any of them showing that he tends to or that he understands what he's doing and rational trier of fact could conclude from that that he understood his conduct and thus understood that it was illegal and this includes the evidence on the video where he tries the door he realizes it's locked he doesn't keep trying it he's responding to his environment and he reacts with understanding that it's locked by not trying to open it again he also bangs on a window that he doesn't ultimately break he appears to realize that that window is not breaking so he moves over to the door and starts kicking that instead this is a person who's responding to his environment with some knowledge of what's going on he also when he breaks the door he doesn't keep banging on the door when it breaks he unsteady actually response to that and walks into the building when he strikes a fire announcer pam he strikes twice just enough to shatter the window he doesn't keep banging on it when it breaks he also as we describe your brief provided as correct location accurately saying he's at the federal building accurately saying that he's near the glass house which is the l a p d headquarters in downtown l a accurately saying he's on a bench he also seems to specifically chosen this location because of the type of help that he apparently thinks he needs while the plan is a little bit odd and it is really you know you don't cry in this case in which somebody but there was a real problem and he had to and i mean this is not a normal case of somebody breaking into property cases somebody who is breaking into the police department because he thought that that's what how you would get help or and surely there's more than that well your honor with regard to the the comments if i could turn to that and just the last types of evidence that i think a rational trier of fact could have determined that there was sufficient evidence of w first alleged misstatement a law that's on page two thirty of the record in the lines to season three through fourteen another way to look at willfully and what it means is that he didn't do it by accident this does have to willful the willful requirement does include not accidental conduct to the extent that it's incomplete the very next thing that the prosecutor refers to in lines nine through fourteen is the requirement that he has to be my my argument is that for each each one of us there is no misstatement so with regard to the first the first two so that would be the first one the next one comes later on that  page so what evidence do we have of that you saw how much purpose and intent he put into destroying that door he did not fall in trip and hit the door he did not strike it by accident this is willful conduct and so i would again say that this is not actually misstatement a lot the government is free to argue that the purpose and the intent that he put into breaking down the door show a person who knows what he's doing and who's aware of his conduct  knowing that it's in law and i understand it's hard to because if you have the circumstantial evidence and it's it's a intent and so that's a hard thing to prove think what makes it not a close case is is the obviousness of the illegality of the conduct so what defenses sort of come come up with on appeal is look there was this justifiable excuse that he had as as a reason that would sort of make it a close knowing that what he was doing was illegal and he thought he was doing something that was justified that maybe put the maybe what would have been illegal pretty broken into a federal building right now the building and storm the candy that the closing argument was not actually the argument that the court just laid out the closing argument was you're losing from the defense with ladies and gentlemen you can't tell what's going on here he's not acting logical there's no clear intense or just throw up your hands because you can't tell what his motives is you're not seeing what this bad purposes so throw up your hands and quit well maybe you're right could lead to better closing argument in the defense but you know  see given the nature of the conduct here which is basically per se bad conduct breaching the property of another something that we all learned as children you can't do and it's on lawful  given that i think even if there's sort of this other element going on here with something going on in his in his brain that doesn't mean that a rational trier of fact can't find that that he believes his conduct or some lawful with honor with respect to judge ward last question about whether or not intent is difficult to prove i would argue that this is the rare case where we actually have proof that he did not have the intent and that was what the government had to argue against closing in this case and instead they argue accidental or non mistaken conduct wasn't sufficient to prove the intent here that was in error and my esteemed colleague said that the diff that this was not a close case because of the obviousness of the illegality of this conduct again it's not whether a reasonable person would have known that breaking a door that they don't own is illegal it's what mr kerr knew at the time that he did this this is a specific intent case and it's about his subjective beliefs at the time and if they're known for their question did he testify