see we've lost most of our spectators but we will move on to the nd case for today which is united states against alan young even so to review his materials and i thought the government went to some trouble to make sure that he had copies of everything he needed and so on your honor mr young had difficulty receiving materials through the  mc there's evidence of that the record documentary one in fact he didn't get some materials from his investigator until the trial so so that factor definitely ways towards continuance additionally but i it's very difficult for trial judges who have put aside this kind of time very difficult i understood your honor and i recognize it's not as simple as just moving some dates around i recognize that a lot of things have to shift but what i would point out here is that the two prior continuances one the st one was i was sued by counsel and that was because the prosecution had changed the indictment e mr young had difficulty with this counsel and i believe the catalyst for that was to his failure to file a suppression motion for the evidence of the nobles so there was a real disagreement between counsel and client here and i recognize that the court's docket is important but but as is the constitutional right to a meaningful defendants and the right to a fair trial and with due respect to the district court its rationale for the says you know that the clock for continuances and all of that starts the moment the person definitively exercises his or her right to self representation news judge over said it's one of the risks  this wasn't the night before trial or anything in the judge may well have actually taken some exception to that upsets the entire schedule there were witnesses there who he points out were going to have a difficult time with this trial the minor victims there was a lot that seems to me would within the realm of rational decision making maybe every judge would have done this but within the realm of rational decision making would have said let's go ahead just get it done in the three weeks you have certainly roger and i would also point out that affirming on this on this issue it would break new ground here for the fact that the glasses because the cases in this circuit that affirm a continu the facts are not as favorable as they are here if you look at both and test up the court actually granted a continuance of twenty one dollars days that's one of the cases that this report lies on the jackson case the continuance was requested two days before trial the of this case suggests that it's maybe more accurate to say or at least one could think that mr harris and mr young were co occupants of this apartment they weren't roommates parents mr harris was staying with then we don't have something that such a strict landlord tenant arrangement i recognize the facts are a little opaque in some ways in that in the sense that we don't know exactly what transpired do we know how the police approached harris by the way did they just go knock on the door what did they do they call them and i'm not sure how they got his contact information but they call the sound his name somehow right been they met him outside outside again and that that's one factor living and mr harrison is not living so that that factor that that should have tipped off officers especially because it's a studio there's essentially one bedroom and the notebooks are found on the bed which which is obviously would have it's definitely a weak spot in our position i would point out that the as i mentioned previously the catalyst for the firing of counsel was this the suppression motion and of i should say the failure this motion mr harris was his mr young was was scrambling pretrial obviously he only had three weeks he did file a few other motions but essentially he did not timely filed a motion admittedly  the record is a little unclear because it is a transcript i believe one hundred and thirty the district court recognizes that mr young head raised the issue of suppression previously and i'm not sure if judge changes referring to pretrial or something something of that nature during trial so so mr young did not timely raise it in terms of judging scheduling but he did at least object to it  d to focus very carefully on what's waived was forfeited and so on to twelve b three capital c lists a suppression motion is one that needs that must be raised by pretrial motion if the basis is then reasonably fail that certainly is true and there's the good cause requirement the consequences of not making a timely motion under  wasn't aware that he made the argument to show good cause even for the district court you're now saying that it was the breakdown in the attorney client relationship but where's that in the record frankly your honor it's  made him unable once he once he takes over his defense through to before trial well i'm not sure exactly all about harris at that point right i'm not sure exactly what precluded him but i will again moving out of the sufficiency of the evidence i'm not here to portray mr young in a benign light in gauges and illicit and illegal relationships with minors in violation of state law but this doesn't meet the he received for multiple girls her prostitution that night was therefore it would seem to me a result of the back page advertisement even though she herself was not advertised in the back page and joe drove her i don't think the evidence or i should say the record is clear on that point all we have is the testimony from giana and she's actually the one who prompts alexis to go with her on this call there's no communication between mr young going to lexus she testified s it is and i recognize that again i would just stress the explaining why that my posting on the back page and getting business from that isn't enough actually pretty easily to show interstate commerce  more interstate commerce and internet website and post well a couple reasons firstly there's the senshi no precedent least in this this court for an internet posting standing alone just to satisfy interstate commerce for this statute but there are other statutes which route we've said that true are really common sense mean isn't the internet everywhere well and that's it's true but that's the problem it's rendered meaningless in another point i would make is that you don't have to put your ads out and back page you could you could have you know word of mouth networks i mean there are other ways even though we do basically live on it certainly  would also i would also point out that these are local ads that this is a chicago based ad so it's obviously geographic based on geographic local geographic so i should say so that's another point that if he was posting ads in illinois excuse me indiana wisconsin other states then it would make more sense but here it's a chicago based based ad so i would argue that point is well i think i'll reserve like to reserve time that's fine thank you very much m it please the court christine o'neill on behalf of the united states let's start you out with this interstate commerce i don't understand why the government didn't just you know get some information from the hotel for example about how many guests over the course of a year had out of state credit card billings you know addresses or something the government does this all the time so why not and if i might add to that why you go where trojan condoms are manufactured it took five seconds to find out  court did say it was a closer call on those other two parts of the interstate commerce proof while still finding that the internet and back page ads alone were sufficient to meet the burden here the government did present testimony on the hotel rooms a law enforcement officer explained that he went online and he could book hotel rooms out of it doesn't tell us whether anyone did i mean i would actually be astonished giv where this hotel is located if there were not out of state visitors there but it's you can't just say i could go on the internet and book or room maybe nobody ever does i mean there's a data there's the fact that you c n that's correct your honor there isn't a good answer in the record about why those that information was not subpoenaed maybe it would be a good idea to have one less problem on appeal in the future certainly your honor as your honor has stated the district court did find that even with out what it viewed as compelling evidence for the hotel room aspect and the condom aspect that the internet was sufficient to meet the interstate commerce element because at the core of the defendant's trafficking enterprise were these back page ads and other websites used to provide the minors to others for commercial sex s your honor it left open that question because there was other better developed evidence about phone usage in that case and so this court left that part of the inquiry open there saying the  internet was part of the decision but not the only basis in that case i think the serious point to make here is if you actually believe in federalism and you think there should be some things that are within congress interstate commerce power and some things that are not which was the theme of the supreme court's decision many years ago and lopez by the time you say the usage of the internet is part of you know it is enough for interstate commerce you've really erased that you know isn't everything interstate commerce now we're all using the internet all the time i would say in this particular case just like you know for the advertisements that are being placed on the internet are actually creating commerce the defendant here is posting these girls to be sold over the internet they create interstate transactions that are central to the offense and so like in  know it's certainly clear that he doesn't as the rule requires raise the suppression motion pretrial but that's not insurmountable under the rule the rule oust a late filed motion if there's good ca yes your honor and even now we're not there it hasn't been good cause it's been slated for the delay as your honor pointed out once the defendant went pro se if this dispute about the suppression motion was in fact the reason for firing his count which is is not in the record your honor but if it was once defendant went pro se he had three weeks during which he filed numerous other pro se most and significantly here you we're going to be introduced by the government but it was not until at sidebar once charlie harris took the stand that the defendant raised this if you know what i am troubled by the about what the police knew at the time of this i would like to clear up one thing that came up while opposing counsel is standing up here he stated that harris told agents he did not live there that is not in the record and if the court would like additional information about that exchange which again is not in the record the facts are actually way in the government's feet the exchange outside the apartment when harris showed up with the key to open the store was he explained that he had a relationship with young that always allowed harris access to where they were where's the source of what you're now telling us so your regular to rely on something that's known as a record yeah yes and certainly i said i wanted to clarify that point about what's in the record and what's not so what it was actually in front of the district court for purposes of making this decision was that the t f o who performed the search testified at trial that he went there got signed consent from harris that harris had a key and that he was the leas holder of the a partner that's all we know about what was in the minds of the searching officers in terms of determining whether they had apparent authority so harris himself as a tenant and young  write something like that your honor getting back to to answer your question and just brokers about the grant that is sort of in the record and sort of not in the record the defendant raised it at sidebar as part of his own representation but it was not a sworn statement it wasn't part of the evidence in this case and it's not something that the court considered when making its decisions about who had authority to concert what about the tim rule twelve used to say that if you don't make one of that one of the motions in the list of pretrial motions it was waived to use that word and then it said that you can overcome the waiver if you have good cause and the rules committee spent a lot of time trying to find the right word for it because waiver by this time it did when the rule had been written a lot of hadn't been decided waiver didn't seem to be the right concept because good cause can't overcome a real waivers so the rules rewritten as it is but then you have the district courts discretion to take it up late on the good cause standard then you have an appellate standard for your review to worry about also i understand your honor and i think the point here is that because of the late raised claim there was no opportunity to develop the record so that's why this is such a on satisfactory record that's correct downside to firing your counsel three weeks before trial and defendant's decision to proceed pro se came after months of delay and discussion regarding his choice of counsel was this his  effort to go pro se not exactly your honor if you look at the record there are pro se filings on the docket from the defendant in december january march and april so there was this kind of back and forth that was going on between him and his attorneys particular particularly around the time of the nd month in february when the defendant finally decided to proceed pro se it was less than a month before the trial date and the district court went to great lengths to make the risks of self reparative representation clear and as you pointed out judge would to go to additional links to make sure that the defendant would his former attorney who stayed on it stand by counsel put some representation on the record about the fact that most of the discovery had been provided to the defendant that point in paper form there were some limited exceptions voluminous phone records that were provided on a disk that understandably are more difficult and in abundance of caution the government produced a new set of discovery to defendant and that is what was delayed in getting to it so there's nothing in the record that says he didn't have the bulk of the discovery and as to the specifics of those phone records which which definite takes up in his reply brief unlimited access to the law library in the weeks leading up to trial so that he could do that the court fairly resolved these different concerns by denying the continuance while making these a co continuous denial decimated yarns yes the trial was a rout he didn't stand a chance he stumbled when he had multiple opportunities to impeach witnesses and i have a suit is a court recognizes he didn't adequately argue the suppress essentially testifies to jurors that sex trafficking is bad that victims are victimized and that prostitution hurts minors these are the highly complex and tech tool concepts lay person supposedly do g it doesn't she she spend some time talking about typical techniques of sex traffickers and i don't know that jurors necessarily would know the approaches are tools of the trade w your honor essentially in this case and again this is i think an odd case from from the sex trafficking point of view your honour's are very familiar with carson i know this disc was not a case where the the trafficker used severe violence whatever psychological tactics he didn't tell whether these miners through shelter money or drugs this was simply very basics they would call sometimes and they'd they would get together and he would take them so this wasn't a very complex situation and in the testimony here really didn't need to address any complexities because there was none and in carson as your honour's you're aware there was th was a much different situation there the trafficker used brutal rapes beatings threats of murder he told the miners with heroin so in that case is the issue was why were these want to know that this kind of psychological happened to certainly roger but i would point out here that these these miners they left young when they wanted to they they would come and go as they pleased and they didn't there was nothing keeping them other than just there i mean you have to that's what do you mean they could come and go i mean they're minors they're children with tattoos so i think that the violence in those cases the abuse the coersion those dynamics are simply absent here so i could be a sentencing factor it seems to me that it doesn't really address whether the crime been well this disc concerns the expo and there's no well but if the expert is testifying as to how he and how how the sex trafficking business operates in some instances without rape and drugs and confinement that's if that's something that might assist the jury an understanding in a situation as you've portrayed it where somebody is sixteen years old or so and old is simply not going to understand and not have the abilities to to make theirs those decisions themselves i don't think you need an expert with the all the aura of respectability that a special agent has i think that it's just too much credibility once too much credence to this position and essentially bolsters the testimony of the victim so again i recognize the record is what it is and there are no further questions thank you for your time well thank you and we thank you very much for accept