gutted when the district court ruled that the death of my client's father in the drug dealer named pac man were a route that then affected the jury instruction which was erroneous me given because the jurors were not instructed to consider the ten thousand dollars that ordered my client to court them so i'll begin with the exclusion of the evidence to the judge's erroneous ruling on the relevant the government objected to is a very low bar and my client was  responsible for the death of the drug dealer pac man and there is a strong imprint this is then a drug related activity and the goal and this is does a knave sorry to interrupt to see was there any evidence that your client knew of this drug dealer past man's death at the time or believed that it came for the drug trafficking organization i didn't see anything in the record that would link her knowledge to that there was not however it wasn't something that there was much done by the district court to allow the record to be developed on that so i think the district courts are mindful of these things and often of pac man to be relevant to a coersion defense as to your client that ms couzens cordova would have had to have known of his death and had to have known or believed that it was carried out by the same drug or decision that she was working for and i don't see anything in the record that would support that argument well i'm not certain that her st hand knowledge was required your honor would still be relevant it might be done a matter  surgeon she would have to have in immediate fear of death or bodily injury if she didn't carry out what the drug organization wanted her to so she i don't see how it would be relevant if she didn't at least believe that pack know of pac man stuff and believe that it was carried out by the drug organization i can say i met your honour's th will agree with you that it would be a stronger claim if she had known really the record well up on the subject but i think that there's an easy explanation for that and it should not prevent my client from having the ability to make a powerful coersion defense because the government course has steered the district court led out of the gates to the idea that harm to rd parties was not a relevant consideration so that very much affected the ability to make the record and how the case transpired but if i may steer at least over to the death of my client's father that is something that she knew about and she was prevented from presenting that evidence so even if we were to say that the exclusion of the evidence concerning pac man was irrelevant and that wasn't the use of discretion i don't think that we can make that same conclusion as to the death of my clients she did you notice that her father was killed after she was already in jail for months on this case so again going to coordination it would have to be something she knew or believed at the time that she was gauging in the drug activity so how would it be relevant that he was killed after she'd already been placed in jail in this case sure well it's proof of the violence and the murderous efforts of the organization that she believed were a constant threat so it is surely relevant to show the reasonableness of her beliefs through the fatal consequences that be felt her father your honor that's a pretty linear explanation in my view mr holmes this is judge brown and how would that not be a tremendously broad exception that would allow of course a defense in nearly all of these types of cases where is the limiting princip does not have anything to suggest that this is exceeding the bounds of the instruction or so in terms of a limiting principle if the jury instruction should be given and then all aspects that's not something that the cheery instruction is what sets the limits it's it's the law and what and the relevant and the federal rules that set the limits she was within the bounds of all those things though your honor i think the again the relevance is through the factual connections that i just laid out a moment ago and now we are looking at the text and it falls within a reasonable fear of harm to her potential to see or serious injury to rd parties and so it is therefore both relevant and falls within the text of the instruction so in that regard we believe that there was air now if there are no further questions on that i will move to the jury determination about the forfeiture because that is something that again there was a very definite view here because will thirty two point two b five any requires the jury to make the determination about forfeiture and this again shows that the rules were not being especially attended to so there's a no objection by your client to the family or to raise the rule and to have to cherry make that determination on forfeiture oh i agree completely completely your  question turns to whether or not it affected her substantial rights well i don't exactly agree with that your honor because this is the type of error that my client didn't have advance notice so in terms of the standard review thompson capice those cases by israelis context as you know but they say that when you don't have advance notice of something you don't have an obligation to object that then triggers the same procedure excuse forfeiture and therefore it was forfeited it was just a substantial rights question well i'd rather not get around to sure i'd rather go through fischer and try to argue that fischer was incorrectly decided  so i think that fisher used the wrong standard of review but if we are and are playing there we can demonstrate a basis for relief on their playing air because there's of course an error that is plain because the rule requires retention of the jury to make this determination that didn't happen it affected substantial rights my client was entitled to have a jury make this determination and also affected her property rights so it's not just procedural there is a substantive hook to this and then finally the impact on the integrity of the  proceedings courts and the public's expect that the rules will be followed this is a war that is very apparent it isn't something that people should mess and yes i will say that under fisher cherry and all these cases this is consistently met and then the sort of get swept away but we can't do that easily here because in fisher cherry other cases a lie in where the proceeds or the the thing that's in dispute you know such as a handgun that's contraband and somebody is allowed to have them so it cannot be returned to the person under the court that your rules that those cases are different but this is cash and there is an explanation for a legitimate source of income so this is different from all of those cases even if those can come out the way that they did this case can and i would like to circle back to one thing before i give up the floor as to the nd issue i raised i would ask the court today specific attention to the herrera case because that was a pla air reversal by the th circuit i think goes back on the th from the th were combined but nevertheless it is still good authority and i would ask the court to note that and again we think relevance is a low for the defendant joelle alvarado santiago justice with guzman's part of this trial the district court committed numerous substantial significant errors in mr alvarado this portion of the case that require reversal here i want to start with mr al d portions in his own case the government charged alvarado with one count with money laundering and to prove money laundering the government needed to prove that alvarado knew not just guessed but actually knew that the money that was coming to a store was coming from some awful source but that's not what he told the law enforcement officers at the time of this arrest what he told the law enforcement and forcing officers was pure speculation pure guesswork that he thought the guys who were bringing money to him were drug dealers but he didn't exclusively on their appearance the fact that they were wearing lots of gold or wearing earrings and they were mexican he thought that they were hispanic hispanics trial and had the opportunity to clarify all the statements to the jury why doesn't that make any error to the extent there was one harmless because you did not have the opportunity to again raised this one of six points again said hey there's this new pending motion to allow me to introduce the remaining portions of my statement the judge said at that time i have not looked at the law why don't you go testimony explaining it in fact in some ways it's better to be able to speak to it yourself or others and then have a statement of it so well but that's to me like an invitation from the judge i'm sympathetic to this argument you've offered under rule one of six it strikes me that there's a problem here but i think judge seen eve is is is on to something here with a harmless fair point meaning  if admitting only the redacted interview could misconstrue to the jury that alvarado santu jago what he's saying about his understanding of where the money came from but you know they're still harmless care problem how do you how do you address that know it's not a harmless error point problem for a few reasons reason one is i have to dig my heels here in front he was not allowed to say the things that he wanted to say about what he actually told law enforcement and problem number two there's a difference between him being allowed to say what was actually going on in the store on the one hand i'm not clear from the record that he was even able to say that but more importantly that's different  t from number two that to correct what he actually told law enforcement if he had had the opportunity to actually tell the jury what he really told law enforcement that would that would call into question the government's proof and that in the of itself is a significant argument point from from which he could argue that the jury can't trust the government's proof here if you were actually able to tell the jury look i did what i really told was that i just was guessing about what the money was coming from based on the appearance of these people that he would been able to argue to the jury that you can't trust what the government has been proving because the government said something else in this case and she that's the part that he was barred from being allowed to say to the jury and again it was a motion that was pending when he was required to take the stand and a motion that was decided against him on forty three dollars grounds after he got off the stand he was out now prohibited from showing the jury these other pieces of his statement the other way you could have done this your honor it was to recall a special agent he was allowed to do that he wasn't allowed to show the jury that the complete version of the state had him speculating about the nature of his statement instead of or i'm sorry speculating about the nature of the drugs or the money as opposed to telling long forcing officers that he knew where the money was coming from the other part on harmless error or your honor is that outside of this statement the government's evidence is razor thin and so if we get to the point that we're actually winning the evidence the government doesn't have a leg to stand on it really comes down to the testimony of the cooperating witness sell gado so gotto is the way that the government able to show that alvarado was the car taro who is using the phone something that he consistently denied and so really at this point we're we're questioning whether this court can affirm the judgment affirmed the jury's verdict based entirely on the say so of one cooperating witness that may be a new jury would come to that conclusion but that sure jury question there is no way under a harmless error review where the default is to reverse the case that this case can can stand this case can be friends and try to remember if there is one other point evidence against alvarado again to prove this one knowledge point that's probably the nd most important piece of evidence on which the government relied to prove alvarado has knowledge so all three of these arguments are all connected and all tied back to this one element that the clarify what your argument on that piece of evidence is you're honest i didn't exactly right it is a pure and no one to hearsay argument and this court has caution litigants time and again that if testimony reliable out of court statements against the person who made or adopted those statements guzman made the statement and guzman adopted the statement so it's perfectly admissible as to her but alvarado didn't make that statement  because that instruction was a generic instruction that came several days after the introduction of the evidence and came after the government actually argued to the jury the exact opposite the government argued to the jury that it was permitted to use this evidence as affirmative evidence against oliver audio and proving that alvarado was guilty so you're now left with the jury that's being told by the government that it's allowed to use this evidence and specifically pointing to respond statement and then on the other hand several sometime later in the case the district judge giving a generic instruction on the use of this evidence i think at this point it's pretty impossible for us to decide that the journey ignored what the government was saying adopted what the government what the judge was saying in the abstract and worked its magic that way i think that's too much to ask of a jury or honor and i do that my time has expired all right thank you very clumped for the united states i want to start by addressing the harmless error argument that the court raised with respect to time well in advance of trial as well as during the trial when the statements and when the transcripts were admitted the defendant made no objection of course as the court's aware the witness was excused and then there was a lunch break it was only at that point that the defendant made a vague assertion that he wanted to reserve his right to play the whole statement during his case in chief and he didn't articulate any specific or make any focused and specific requests that's demanded really under rule one of the six but even if you go past that that issue and don't find that the claim was forfeited there was not only no error as redacted portions were necessary to complete the statement but certainly not one that was harmless here there was extensive knowledge oh of her extensive evidence  not just the statements we had for example so gotto the cooperators testimony regarding the transactions and his interactions with alvarado science jago the nature of those transactions itself demonstrates the defendant's knowledge of the illegality of these funds for example it was ten thousand dollars at a time in cash that was plunked down at the defendant's store and he broke up into small transactions and court is is definitely correct that this blends into therefore the delivered avoidance instruction issue but it's clear from the record that there was ample evidence of the defendant's knowledge of the transactions there also ledger every ten thousand dollars that he washed that's money on top of the inner cambio fees that he would normally have received and did receive for every transaction illegal or legal there were also text messages recovered from problems that's in the record yard has nothing to do with sell gado it's testimony for example it simply corroborates got his testimony and definitely provides evidence that this defendant knew that these transactions in which he was regarding a closing argument that's regrettable that that moment was made but there was no objection at that point during closing and far from being of a limiting instruction that the district court gave and i would note that the district court gave that instruction because the government proposed it prior to trial it was a specific limiting instruction regarding a statement of  prior statement of a defended not being used against the other defendant it's hard to really make a more specific women ng instruction and less than just your judge had said to defend believe there was an objection at the time and in that structure wasn't requested at that time correct the defense had of checked into portions of some questioning as to abuse michael for it was prior statements but there was certainly no  request for limiting instruction and that's should not be on the government to request a limiting instruction in that case certainly sometimes defense counsel may not request eliminating instruction so as to  avoid attention being drawn on to a question for example so no there had not been a limiting instruction requested at the time the testimony came in no or any more specific limiting instruction yes your honor i would agree to that i would also note that when in the course of the trial it's it's not common that the government would for example author exhibit such as arts or ask a question with respect to defend that the court asked that question so leading up to the trial it was not just these two defendants but an additional two defendants that leaders of the organization who were scheduled for trial those two defendants didn't plead guilty until after the final  issues related to proving it also addressed issues that would clearly be prejudicial or improper at trial and the united states is competent and you know confident in its role and it should have done that and we did do it in this case so in addition to prudence statements and those proposed redactions we rejected things like of response as a mission to having a firearm at the store or regarding his objections to that and in fact that there just are courts practice once you admit the two it is many exhibits as possible at the beginning of each witness's testimony so there would be less interruptions during the etc but i want to go back to kind of where this started with regard to him this is a money laundering case so wouldn't it be relevant whether the defendant knew the money was legal or was merely speculating as to its origins based upon certain stereotypes so the government yes the government heads of peru that the defendant knew the money was coming from and specified unlawful activity why he held that circuit i believe decision and it it stated that removing a defendant's explanation of the political and religious motivations for his action didn't change the meaning of the portions of his confession where he said  alter the fact that he admitted to the acts so here is just the same thing where the defendant was asked where do you think the money is coming from there was no there was no the question wasn't one hundred percent where do you know that if the money is coming from it was where do you think the money is coming from be honest and he responded drugs even assuming there was an error and the reaction which the united states doesn't agree with the omit it couldn't be harmless because the omitted portion was in fact harm would have been harmful it simply gave another reason albeit an ugly one for a why he believed the money was illegal and and also want to touch upon and i hope to address your chose to do so before the court had ruled on the one of six issue and it was it was clear that he was going to testify regardless of that one of six issue keep in mind defense counsel been given multiple opportunities and he was simply saying that he want to play the one of the of the direct examination and the question was did you hide any information from them no and then the defendant started talking what i told them and then my co counsel objected the court said yes he answered it next question that's simple that's a standard yes you were asked a yes or no question you can't give in on unfettered narrative what other questions did defense counsel ask he asked did anybody during  transactions identify the source of the money what were you trying to explain to the special agents about what you knew about these people coming in to drop off the money so that there was no objection to those questions defense counsel is allowed to ask those questions and those questions went directly to the issues we're talking about the defendant having a chance to provide those explanations about what where his beliefs were from or what exactly he knew about the money or didn't know about the money so i think that shows that one there was no error and it certainly wasn't a harmless one if i could i might i would turn to perhaps some issues with eldad since i have a limited time but the judge brennan asked what's the limiting principle for admitting evidence of threats and we had many principle is the case law that has already been set forth in this circuit we know from sawyer that any threat needs to be immediate we know from a doubt that a potential future violence is an insufficient  address or course in defense and that's exactly what the defendant was trying to do what she wanted but evidence which had a very undeveloped proffer on about the alleged death of her father in two thousand and eighteen months and months after she got arrested in guatemala i believe so far far away it's just there's nothing to establish that the defendant knew that that death would occur and  even if you gave her the benefit out that she somehow knew that death would occur again going back to this court's cases and limiting principles the threat of potential future violence is just not sufficient to establish door portion as to  that evidence was admitted by the district court partially on the premise that there was not cordoba knowledge had learned of through others she wasn't there but she learned through others of that two points and in fact that was never tied up cordova's direct examination so that belief was never actually established on the record but that's what was proffered and that's all i would submit the primary reason why that evidence came in and it  just also goes to show that this is far from a case where guzman cordoba was precluded from presenting the heart of her defense she had ample opportunity if she did so she offered evidence of threats that rd parties when she could show that she knew about them or that they occurred at your procreates timeline in the case and she testified extensively albeit testimony that in or abuse of discretion certainly in excluding the evidence of those alleged as much less one that would be plain error or certainly not harmless error the evidence just late in the conspiracy we saw text messages between her and the organization's leader about conquering the world those photos from my cordoba cell phone were it was apparent that they had an effect on the jury because when the defendant was shown them on cross examination she admitted there were photos of her friends of her and her friends her and her children and then it was later stab those pictures were taken throughout the time period when she allegedly under this found coercive effect so there was ample evidence to refute those claims especially in a case like a conspiracy where it's an ongoing crime and we know that those types of cases are are more difficult to establish a direct effects with regards to the forfeiture issue that was discuss thirty two point to find that presenting the issue to the jury oh yes and i would now say that again there was no objection as the as the court's noted and that therefore this case i just like the fisher in cherry cases we need to look at whether there was a substantial effect on the defendant's rights have you ever here on to counsel's argument that there was no advanced notice about addition they also the defendant also is specifically complaining about the failure to the court to issue a preliminary order forfeiture and the defendant for example in the pre sentence investigation report had additional notice between the property the guns were being inventory the same days the defendants arrests by leaders of the organization or drugs were being cut up for resale distribution in the house  so the government never made that argument and it's not people to make that argument now as for the proof about what my client knew from mr starr gado is the death of the drug dealer oh god it was my client's boyfriend so she would know lots of things from him in the government like in fight an issue it's talked up didn't argue the guzman court still but didn't know who killed pac man so well those are fine points to inquire about on the appeal we can look to what the evidence is the government never contested that my client knew this and of course i worry that we're steering to a twenty to fifty five we're trying to counsel by not making an offer proof that was easily made to connect these dots here so with that i asked the court to government to complete its proof on the house for a statement during its case and the fb i have any special edition that just get back on the stand it's not at all clear that alvarado would have taken the stand and this court and numerous courts around the country the three grounds for eldorado to get in the complete statement he was not allowed to get in that statement either during his testimony so as this court to reverse the judgment of the district court all right thanks very much and