united states against red is your fifth case for argument this morning miss ray withdrew her second issue for appeal regarding the vulnerable victim and hanson and so today i'll be arguing one issue that there is insufficient evidence at trial for the jury to convict ms ray of wire fraud fraud the first two of those crimes related to her position as chief deputy auditor of laporte county and the third crime related to her relationship to her father in law norman r crime twenty witnesses testified over the course of a four day trial regarding the government that and by contrast only two witnesses testified regarding the wire fraud and similarly two witness account you know our money is supposed to be for the three of us and yet she sets up a separate account the i me the witnesses that didn't testify on it were dynamite witnesses well your honor there were two witnesses that testified issue were our money are referring to himself his son michael of and is rather a defendant appellant in this case not only did he repeatedly state that the funds were our money but the funds themselves that were spent and transferred in this case derived from joint accounts with rights of survivorship and so mr ray was not merely coasting the touring on these accounts he was actually a joint account holder of the funds that were transferred and spent but don't you think the jury could take into account things like his memory issues like he couldn't name the current president or any of the banks where the accounts were all of the issues with him in other things that he testified that he didn't want to lose the law all the money that it was supposed to be used for the needs of all three of us he didn't want his money spinning casinos i mean the jury could look at the whole picture and put it together certainly the jury if the jury is intitled to make a credibility determination here of norman ray's testimony but i think if i could consolidate it kind of three key points the first is that these were joint accounts with rights of survivorship in which mary were re the defendant appellant was a joint account holder with full rights to utilize and spend the funds norman ray repeated at trial that the funds were our money and furthermore when asked at trial how he planned to leave his estate he indicated that he was leaving his estate except for one dollar to mrs ray and her husband and despite all that transpired in the course of trial his well reflected this same intention and he testified that he had not changed it and so i think there is a consistent thread reflected not only in his testimony but also in his actions and finally norman raced to metz a letter to the court at sentencing saying i don't understand what happened in this case to saying specifically as of march tw instances that you know mr i mean norman was not a one man account and i would argue your honor that as a joint account holder she had a right to transfer and spend fines and if i could draw you at get government exhibit five that's not the only way funds were transferred and spent there were also cash withdrawals directly from the joint account there were also debt payments made from the joint account so if it were and spent it at casinos right but as we have some during the fund her nothing form correct correct there was that there was a portion and i believe there was one transfer that was spent to cover norman's housing expenses at the retirement facility that he lived at however we argument is that she had a right as the joint account holder to transfer and send those funds and i think what's critical here in just analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence is that there was no evidence presented regarding any fraud any misrepresentation of about the joint account at stuff we don't know about any conversations between norman ray and mary ray when those joint accounts were set up all we know is that when norman ray relocated from florida to indiana and shortly before his move in march twenty thirteen that he went with mary to three different banks in la porte indiana and set up these joint accounts we have his signature on these accounts and there is no evidence that he didn't understand what he was doing and designating the joint accounts as with rights of survivor ship it's a checkbox that clearly states joint account with right of survivorship so we would argue here that in fact mary rag a believes that she had a right to spend these fines that's reflected in norman statements the trial that the money is our money it's reflected in his letter to the court at sentencing that indicates that the money was shared ninety between the three at that and so for those reasons and we would ask you to reconsider the evidence in this or thank you good morning your honour's and me up to the court the jury did not commit a manifest miscarriage of justice in convicting ray of fraud instead of quite rationally and correctly concluded that ray had obtained control of her father in law's benefits through fraud and had taken that control of the assets was getting control of them to put them in the joint accounts with right of survivorship so the fact that they're there the fraud it in large measure has already occurred at the time that that happens in march of two thousand and thirteen she also has mr ra sign a power of attorney that's that is in the record and that document reflected that she was going to get reasonable expenses you know the fees that she incurred in doing this and she was going to take no more than ten thousand dollars per year in gifts and instead she then takes mr ray around norman right around to a bunch of different banks deposits all the money and then and then wipes it all so that's the fraud the fraud is just as as as we have witnesses testify witnesses testified who work for the poor county and we were under the impression that she didn't gamble very much we were under the impression that when she ambled she was a winner not that she was losing over one hundred thousand dollars a year gambling and similarly norman ray testified you know my intent was that she could have this money if she needed it and the key question perhaps your honor was on page eighteen of the transcript and they asked you know did you want to spend the money on gambling isn't it true that back then and today still you did not want your money to be spent to casinos answer yes sir so that's the evidence of the fraud is that this money was being given to her for a specific purpose which was to be used by norman during his lifetime and b needed it and that that's what the purpose of the money was as far as leaving the estate to ms ray and to michael the evidence that about why that was occurring occurred was essentially because and this is on page  twenty two and twenty three of the of the of the transcript volume three that the other son martin couldn't be trusted to handle his financial affairs and didn't deserve his money because he and his wife were spendthrifts and i don't know on this record that you could conclude anything other than that ms ray had concealed from her father in law that she and her husband were also spendthrifts they declared bankruptcy in two thousand and ten they were obtaining money for twenty eleven in two thousand and twelve by stealing it from  poor county and then when that money ran out for two months she spent all of her comps that she earned by gambling so much at the casinos and then a month later she turns around and and obtains access to this six hundred thousand dollars cash cow from her father in law your honor the  the jury could hear this testimony and the jury could recognize just as the district court recognized frankly in imposing the vulnerable victim and handsome which i'm aware that my opponent is withdrawn that mr ray was eighty four years old that he was entirely dependent for his financial affairs frankly for his personal life for getting around he could drive a car but he didn't he didn't he let his son and his daughter in law do that and that for all those reasons that she was in control of his affairs and she took advantage of that fact and she did defraud him all of that evidence your honor was certainly more than enough for the jury to conclude that that the defendant is guilty of fraud and again we're not even just on the bare sufficiency standard defense counsel trial said i don't see any basis for filing a rule twenty nine motion so we don't you know she has to prove not just that a rational jury could conclude this without a manifest miscarriage of justice or no manifest miscarriage of justice occur here at the defendant stole over six hundred thousand dollars from her father in law just like she stole over one hundred fifty thousand dollars from the poor county she was just the convicted for those offenses and we would ask that this order from with weighing each element of the charge crime of wire fraud and actually determining whether there's sufficient evidence for each element and some of that prejudice that's been highlighted as a significant amount of gambling evidence was admitted in this case granted we concede that it was rightfully a bed but nonetheless one of the purposes for which it was admitted was to show the identity of who committed the government yet for the purposes of the wire fraud here where we posit that she had a right granted by her father in law to spend these funds and it actually has a severe danger of prejudiced that the jury is going to assume that just because she gambles heavily that she also must have stolen this money from her father in law and regarding the power of attorney she did in fact have the power of attorney with financial control over her father in law that power of attorney covered a set of different aspects of their of how she was providing care giving to him and i think a distinction that needs to be made is that the joint accounts provide an independent basis for her to have access to these funds ms ray was not merely spending the funds via the power of attorney but she was spending the funds because she was a joint account holder entitled to do so so there are no further questions we ask