well here the first case united states  want to focus on at a minimum the district court should have heard testimony from this complaining juror that was not done and this court should send this case back to the district court and have then at a minimum conduct this hearing with the kevin anderson and the district court concluded that the allegation wasn't credible credible because it couldn't find anything on the docket or in the public record that such testimony was even thought of a conclave i want white why is that i believe the district court said that they that he couldn't find anything about any news stories about the case that said th juliet anderson was going to testify at this trial that doesn't mean that this juror who said that she saw this story or had this information about juliet anderson testifying at the trial there's i mean they for example didn't hear that or learned that from social media didn't learn that from some other source on the internet the judge said that he looked for new stories and there was no new stories about there was an exhibit there through and through evidence at trial which listed anderson's income and position there was an exhibit the exhibit listed her income as about something over i think was nine thousand two hundred fifty dollars per month this juror chris said that juliet anderson made about fifty thousand dollars a year and it was a loan document and had some information when applying for a loan for this house if you  calculate the one thousand two hundred fifty dollars per month that's about one hundred eleven thousand dollars a year so what the jurors said about fifty thousand dollars a year wasn't even accurate it wasn't accurate from the exhibit that was  forward and complained about two jurors two jurors specifically that said one of that had a laptop in the jury room and another one that said she was conducting research on the internet and the court had before a two or three page affidavit and that affidavit laid out some basics of what this complaining juror said about the other jurors had a minimum and i don't think it would have it would have taken a lot of time when you have a complaining juror that says this misconduct occurred it's not unreasonable for the court to bring in that complaining juror at least point her up on the stand ask her some questions let the parties ask her questions and determine if there's more to this that the the court says that this witness was not credible i don't know how you determine credibility from a two page affidavit you can make a better in a reasonable and a proper determination about credibility when you get that complaining you're in have the complaining this this juror did actually complain during the course of the trial the jurors sent a note out complaining about this statement made by the other juror that it seemed to be improper that there was no support for the statement made by the other juror in the in the record in the evidence the court got the note in it and in all honesty i think both according counsel didn't understand the note and there was some discussion about it some conference in about and basically the judge told the jury to go back in and  pass your notes for through the jury foreperson and then this issue never came back up if you have a juror that's complaining about other jurors and misconduct committed by other jurors you know you're asking  juror to pass that note through potentially the other jurors the ones that she's complaining about to the jury for person to then handed up to the judge this juror did she didn't initially on her own she just handed the note to the deputy and then it was afforded to the judge because she didn't want the other jurors to know that she was complaining about them that's a fair and reasonable way and in all honesty i think the court missed this th significance of this note at the time from the very first day of testimony to the fed ago hearing itself it was rife with perjury mr anderson complained of it several times made motions the judge made  findings that there was no perjury despite clear proof factual proof that there had been in the past trial hearing now a finding that there is a finding in the post tr that that's a perfectly sound choice it's just here you're asking us to decide large numbers of other people our dreams elsa's well it's that it's true judge but it what we're really doing is trial level i understand that but sometimes there are it's such an overwhelming amount of perjury when we get down to the phatic of hearing for example the judge found that mr  anderson had committed murders and gave him extra points for testifying that he hadn't committed the murders we now have got dents which is outside the record admittedly we didn't move the court  to hold the appeal in advance while we filed twenty two fifty five the court chose not to grant that motion but you know we believe we have very strong evidence that that the murder testimony was just out of whole cloth so that's our three of the six charges second of all that sanchez case talks about when testimony defies physical realities that can be a ground  where he was in prison i mean we're not talking about two weeks this way that way it seems unlikely that that a person would not recall that they were in prison at a particular time  high even without the cross reference but it seems to me that any sentencing judge who hears evidence that a defendant a murdered someone and credits that evidence is going to take a harder line in terms of potentially departing from the guidelines and that if the process is tainted by perjured evidence about a defendant committing a murder that that the  mere fact that the guidelines themselves may have committed such a sentence in any event doesn't mean that we ignore such a serious and according  case united states versus moten where this court said human nature is such that some jurors instead of feeling harassed by post trial interviewing might rather enjoy it particularly when it involves the disclosure of secrets or provides an opportunity to express misgivings and lingering doubts the serious danger exists that in the absence of supervision by the court some jurors especially those who were on enthusiastic about the verdict or have grievances against fellow jurors would be led into imagining sinister happenings which simply did not occur or into saying things which although inadmissible would be included in motion papers and would serve only to decrease public confidence in verdicts i think that's a perfect description of what happened here that the standard of review is abus record yes she did your honor so it wasn't simply that she was complaining about something long afterwards or a no that's correct but it's important to distinguish between a note that was sent to the district court by  and what was alleged three years later six months later i'm sorry the note specifically only talked about the information with respect to juliet anderson and her income and years of employment that was the note referred to in general how does this juror know about her income and her years of employment and the answer to that well of course the district court didn't give this answer the answer is from the evidence the evidence was in exhibit two sixty seventy and in fact the jury did send a note asking to see that exhibit with my off the mountains way off ok but it again is your honor observed earlier fact sometimes jurors get facts wrong the point is that there was evidence of her income and her years of employment and so the fact that a juror maybe perhaps you know misremembered what the numbers were i think is inconsequential the question there is that the point is that there wasn't an allegation of wrongdoing here it was just to simply in a question about the evidence and i think that that's a classic six o six b deliberation issue that the district court yes yes and then and then when we get to the post verdict six months after the fact there were a number of problems first of all and this was covered it wasn't really discussed in the briefs but it was it is in the record that it was handled in appropriately by counsel and that the district court in resolving the motion discussed this where what should have happened when counsel became aware of the allegation counsel should have immediately notified the court and the district court then should have handled it that is what happened here the discord to be sure said absolve mr lewis of intentional wrongdoing he said you know i've known mr lewis for thirty years nevertheless he handled this incorrectly what did he do he had expert a communication with this discredited jerk and he's the one who drafted the affidavit she didn't draft it she signed it but he drafted it so we had all kinds of ex parte contact between the juror and counsel and then at the end of that we get an affidavit that when you when you analyze it it really again doesn't amount to much what it says is a juror used a laptop in the jury room well as the district court said let's assume for the sake of discussion that that's true i'm very skeptical that that actually happened but let's assume it's true that doesn't violate any instruction i gave the district court erbium gave the jurors because we don't know what supposedly this juror was doing on the laptop for all we know he was checking stocks or he was you know answering e mails or what have you we don't know there's no allegation that this juror if he had a laptop and if he had internet access was doing anything wrong was there internet access the dischord said no i can't imagine he said there was no why fire you cannot get why find a jury room this report made that finding what if you have a chip in your eye i'm not technologically ellsberg so please pardon my question i don't aren't there some laptops that have a chip so that even if it's not necessarily connected to the system right in the right place you can still have access yes and i thought of that too now first of all this was two thousand and nine so i don't i don't know what the technology was in two thousand and nine but i think the broader point is the jury at the district court found i don't know how we got why five if he had access otherwise what was there to access and the district court found there's nothing that i know of that i found that the that that your could have been looking up that had anything to do with this case could have used his his phone line correct well access to the internet but then the question becomes whether he's more likely to be looking up stuff involving this case when there isn't anything about him on the internet or trying to keep up with better contemporaneously to find out what this person was doing on the internet while the contemporaneously is an interesting point during the trial except the it wasn't brought to the court's attention during the trial that particular thing was not i thought no no that was not brought to the district court's attention during the trial that wasn't brought up to six months later the only allegation that came up during the trial was about the evidence with respect to miss anderson so it jumping over a whole lot of things what what evidence did the government put forward to justify the forfeiture of mr anderson's mother's life insurance i guilty she she was a coconspirator and pled guilty to money laundering and that's actually that's a nice jumping off point to another issue here when i think insurance i mean if if she made a thousand dollars profit from that  had a many in our life insurance policy you couldn't said life insurance policy is a proper substituted asset what that that it comes from it comes from the from the proceeds of the conspiracy well i was life insurance when you get it because you die ok but you don't get it because you're involved in a conspiracy but there was mr mr anderson was found liable for a million dollars based on his drug dealing and this was an asset of here is his his future receipt of those proceeds and so the government was entitled to collect that his future receipt of those here is when we can't find the money that he received from the drugs and that's what the agent sets forth in her affidavit asking for substitute assets and by the way that that's only that yes you can do that but only if you put in evidence at that time mr henderson was concealing the asset if you didn't have them and the fact that he got other assets from his mother's life insurance well i don't think it has to be that he can seal them it's that he did something what did he do while he was purchasing things for example he purchased the house that mysteriously burned down after the fact for one and and he burned his own house down in order to make sure the government could i don't know why it happened your honor but there was certainly suspicion of arson i have a four hundred fifty thousand dollar house in the rochester area that's that's a lot of house