thank you may please the court my name is daniel neuron reilly and i do represent the appellant in this case glenda scott crawford i have reserved two minutes for rebuttal prior to getting into the statutory construction in the review under the statutes in this case i would to consider that you have a denture a ruling that were made and i'm asking the work to reverse based on the abuse of discretion specifically the prejudicial information regarding the affiliations of my client mr crawford the highly prejudicial nature of that as well as the role of completeness specifically defense counsel at the time of the trial had indicated to judge sharp that he in fact wanted to play the entire video is of which the government had taken snippets out and i think that the court should review that for an abuse of discretion because pursuant to the rule of completeness i think that was the defendant's right to play that in its entirety if in fact he wanted to to not allow that was prejudicial and also detriment was detrimental to my clients the entire video was in the evidence correct but they would not allow mr lew or brand to play that for the jury the judge in essence said there's that was the denial fact he was only allowed to play if you wanted to give the snippets that he wanted that was fine but he was not going to allow mr lugar into play in its entirety specifically i haven't cited in my appendix pages four forty two to four forty four and specifically the judge has indicated that incumbent upon the defense to give them notice of what do you want to hear for you the defendant it's called its own witnesses but the judge in fact indicates and it's in the transcripts of those pages that he is not going to allow mr libby brand to in fact play the entire portions so i think that's an abuse of discretion specifically since these allowing the government to put forth the snippets that they want to put northern district and the judge said to me it's the defendant's right to put it in and if the jury gets born the jury doesn't want to hear it well then that falls upon the defense but to not allow it played allowed snippets was prejudicial and that's what how the government was controlling that's how the government was in fact the one who was leading or how the government was in essence the one calling the shots and if you read that if you see it in its entirety that picture is borne out to just allow the snippets where is highly prejudicial to say you know he said a lot of insight in flame atory things but those were seconds out of hours of conversations that would have given the jury a better picture of what was occurring and for that reason saturn that the government wasn't going to put it in its entirety but be that as it may i do want to discuss with respect to the fact that mr crawford was charged in the indictment with three separate counts and i think for the reasons set forth in my as well as the evidence the deuce the trial the none of those convictions can in fact stand specifically i want to talk about the attempt to produce and use a radio radio logical dispersal devices that count one in my papers as well as the argument that an attempted to bring to judge sharp attention to thirty two two three three two subdivision age doesn't apply to the actions of mr crawford as we talked about and as a court can look at in the two thousand and four congressional intentions or congressional findings that applies to dirty bombs it doesn't apply to the facts of this case where in it is in other words there  device that was capable of and designed and intended to endanger human life on a three thirty two was used to endangered human life and i don't read it the same way i believe the two thirty use i think that with respect to the fact that tooth two three three two eight was a design to attack dirty bombs it doesn't apply to the actions in this case in specifically the weapon in this case if we want to call it a weapon that may have been a misstatement so with respect to the attempt to produce and use a radiological dispersal device i don't believe that the people or the government in this case had shown that this device in fact fell under that category similar under two and three them weapons of mass destruction i think that it's similar again it describes a weapon that is designed to release radiation and release and are two separate and distinct actions and as a court can see in the two three three two i congress had that did legislate in two thousand and fifteen to in fact address the conduct of mr crawford the court is aware that the congress is aware of existing law and so the only way to look at two three three to subdivision nine is that there was no prior statute that had previously addressed and again if you go through the cases that were started in there's very very few the release is a single explosion it does not apply to the mission and it would direct the court's attention specifically to the expert who testified in this case and not once was the word release out of his mouth he spoke about emissions and he spoke about dispersal but at no point did he in fact testify that this weapon or this  otherwise x ray machine could in fact ever have been used as a weapon i see that my time is up i will sit down i have two minutes dozens for the united states turning first to the issue of statutory construction i think it's important to note that we are under a plane or review standard here and under these circumstances i think the court would rightly be very reluctant to narrow the scope of the statute congress that no one is disputing that congress when they enacted the statute had in mind as the impetus for the statute the threat of dirty bombs at the time but it's important to know that they they wrote the statute in broad language to encompass the potential ingenuity of people like mr crawford who are intending to use radiation  radiation that damages human tissue and causes genetic mutations there's nothing illogical or somehow undramatic all of speaking about the release of energy and that's what radiation is and we talk about the release of energy all the time i think the problem that crawford is is trying to identify here or are somehow make into a problem is the idea that someone we think of the release of something or we often think of something that is tangible first but radiation by using the term radiation they were there making it very clear that it was the release of energy that he constructed with his friend eric fayed who can recreate it into this conspiracy to make a remote activation device and it's going to park it near targets and i think it's very important for the  court to understand that this was not some kind of harebrained scheme this is a as the testimony of the experts who are extremely qualified to speak on this matter made clear this was a very potentially deadly device when   in the way that crawford was going to do it when he when he was his design was to to park it in front of a storefront mosque at targets that he had scouted and to leave it running pointed at the building as the testimony of the experts makes clear it would have taken approximately an hour if not less to cause to endanger human life or to actually kill  credibility with the people he was meeting with also to check their bonafide it's at if the his first meeting with the undercover is i don't know who you are but if you were to join one of the organizations that i'm involved with i could trust you enough to combine o agendas he also believe the clan had the resources to to obtain this device these are expensive pieces of equipment in his first meeting with his first communications with the klan leader in north carolina that the government did not know about and it was really taken under his own initiative he asked that you know we can i want what we need is the klan to pull its resources to purchase th equipment and he tells one of the undercover agents you know that the knights of the ku klux klan may have the resources to bring the project to fulfillment so again this is the deputy of the organization was important as far as the rule of completeness issue it's important to note that the the videos here that were played were extended clips we were not splicing small amounts of ten of video to kind of create a distorted view if the we've provided the videos to the court the court can look at them it's the defense counsel never identify and even on appeal we're not hearing what what actual pieces what precise pieces of the video were necessary to and to to correct any kind of distortion here mr crawford i think the evidence is it's very clear he came in with his to the first meeting with the the undercovers knowing precisely what he wanted to precisely the kind of device he wanted to get how what that was going to entail in terms of materials and he wasn't merely sharing an idea  as has been suggested on appeal he was what he was doing was soliciting support and financial support specifically and also material in terms of the tubes he says to  to the terrorism enhancement i think again this is the evidence is clear from both the the trial record and the statements provided to the court in sentencing that mr crawford here was to intimidate and to influence the government has its targets were explicitly political and so i think there's a there's no question here that the terrorism incident should have applied unless there's any other questions i will rest on the arguments in our brief thank you very much you've you've reserved two minutes i have to thank you the indication that the government wanted have been able to excise out the highly prejudicial information of any organizations that mr crawford was affiliated with i think that that could have been it could have been accomplished with just a reference organization without having to get into what actual organizations they work it's not an element of crime it was there specifically to prejudice the jury bad person well and yes well with respect to the actual possession or their use it with respect to the issue with respect to the idea i can't i could i could see that  his defense was always that he never intended to use it he never picked the target and again if the court will look at the the history of this he brought his idea to a senator he brought it to a jewish cons