federal cases involving undercover law enforcement officers posing online as young women and they communicate in about the act but this case presents a unique factual situation as far as i see in the case look which is they are agents here and saying i am over eighteen was on a platform that you had to be eight joined in the plaque in the profile reversed course and indicated that that was not the case and they had this online persona hadn't quite reached the age of eighteen except thing is true to your your statement that the government represented that the person he was communicating with was a team what do you what would the result be if your client didn't believe the government representation and in fact suspected the person was under age a long that's an interesting question your honor i don't i think that we would look at that objectively and but your honor i would also say that mr robinson testified at trial that he believed this individual was eighteen and there were numerous things in the in the online exchanges indicating that he believed this person was eighteen and respect your honor i'm not i am not aware of any evidence that he believed the contrary his how about his message that you let kind the young might have to see some i d and i think your honor that's an indication that he wanted to be sure he was communicating with someone who was in fact this individual acts he age of eighteen and so and that is the distinction that matters for our principal issues presented to the courts and so the arguing that legal issue the question is whether there's sufficient evidence to support a verdict on that theory isn't it that's st deficiency of the evidence argument that's all along to wait until the age of majority when he was convicted of violating a statute that we respectfully submit your honor requires intent to engage in that conduct while a minor and we believe there there are a number of reasons they had people would need identification not the ah and engaging in a commercial sex act they can use it to get government and the only thing they were talking about was commercial sex sex and you're already ahead respectfully mr robinson was making clear that that would happen after she had changed the age of majority and in nevada over frankly that activity is legal at least in some parts of that state why would she need why would she need a fake id because of her age if you would if she wasn't going to use it until she was been you didn't need to be eighteen to get on a bus did she i don't believe so your honor but i think it is an absolute matter but i think certainly that that there could be people commercial sex act of opinion on mr ray on the entrapment issue after mr robinson learned that nikki was seventeen he continued to recruit her to come to california you would agree with that that's correct here all right well where where is the evidence inducement for entrapment at one point the under the the cops the confidential source said you know i'm really i'm actually seventeen and then mr robinson continued repeatedly to make arrangements this change in age is the u s government creation of much more serious over finances under these circumstances and one last one last entrapment question if i understand your argument for at there isn't any evidence of inducement because inducement does require some sort of pressure yes all structures and patients building a friendship can be the basis for creating that inducement but then you have to be coaxing them or goading them or putting some sort of pressure on them and i think the case law is clear about that otherwise anytime we have an agent go undercover in a drug operation or anything like that there'd be an entrapment structure and that's not the case what we have to have is some evidence that the government was using  friendship or relationship or the false best representation to create pressure on the defendant that would overcome a law abiding citizens will when it comes to actually causing a crime if you look at the conversations between them there's no pressure on either the interstate commerce element that you raises or the age element interstate commerce right to begin the conversation he is one he's talking about let will travel state to state doing this business and then when she starts talking about well yeah i'd like to get out colorado she's not pressuring him to get out of colorado she's just going along with the plan that he's already set forth when it comes to the age yes there was misrepresentation about race because only someone eighteen or older can get on the website even here didn't directly say i'm eighteen to mr robinson that was the profile and then the nd there's an opportunity to talk about age in a normal contacts he says he's seventeen right from there and there's no hesitation from mr robinson at that point in fact within an hour is about when  human or his theory that we have to somehow show that he knew a commercial sex act would occur before she turned eighteen and i think there are four categories of evidence to support that st of all we've got his statements between him and nicky on the text messages and phone conversations and i will discuss those but we also have the age deception category of this is includes the fake id is a promise that they need to be hella discreet to watch out for her nosy relatives and nosy greyhound and then we have the agent testimony agent speedy who testifies that in his experience whenever somebody is trafficking minors and bringing them across state lines they don't wait for them to mature for the sex acts and that experience is certainly something that  looked at and then the government's case here yes the theory below was this theory that goes with his interpretation of the statute and he testified himself getting up there and saying no i didn't plan to do this well the jury didn't believe that what was going to make child's child pornography minor was something much much more illegal that would be under age sex and by that we had his testimony that he was going to make her perfection and as our expert pointed out here you can't become a profession that being a prostitute without practicing that is a time so i think when you take all those things together we had sufficient evidence that a jury could infer that he was going to cross a twofer before she turned eighteen yes there could be other that was the reason that they needed to get  mr robinson's position isn't going to pay for a minor to move and live with them for six months and not engage them in prostitution i think they certainly could hear when when you also have his testimony where on cross examination he had no explanation about how he was going to cover her shelter or the like during that interim time and so i think the jury can certainly draw that from that and they can drive from the fact that you know he's spending two hundred  instructions on the theory we're concerned about what the law requires well then you're required to decide whether your alternative theory is correct because if it's incorrect we have to reverse because you've just said the jury could have convicted on that there if the jury could have convicted on that theory and that theory is illegitimate we don't know whether the jury convicted on that theory and we have to reverse that right and i don't think  interpretation is right then you certainly can look at look at look at those facts and if you find that aren't your patients right then you can look at the facts that show that in fact i need milnes dant if the theories are presented to the jury and there's sufficient evidence of both and the jury convicts one of the theories is illegitimate i think this president says we have to reverse i thought it was kind of strange jury convicted on the other side if we have a a one of the theories illegitimate not lawful not a proper interpretation of the statute and then we have to reverse and you're saying well the jury we know that the jury didn't convict on this illegitimate theory i think that's what you're having to say but you're also arguing the opposite that i don't think that's correct your honor if the illegitimate theory actually requires more than the legitimate theory here the illegitimate theory requires less well the on the other i guess i'm not sure which one would you think is the illusion that they're here  wrong that means we have to have a sex act before writing that's the theory that was presented to the jury and that they convict on and so in and in this case that actually requires more because it would require that she be under age before the age of eighteen so i don't think the way you're presenting it that that's the one that you would be calling the illegitimate there and if it's the reverse if in fact our theory about the statute is the correct theory and it was simply wasn't presented we have an admission from him on the stand scene is the wrong one that requires more and there was more here and that was the theory presented the jury so i guess i would respectfully disagree with with how the analysis works in this case will we can we can sure on that later is very questionable expect testimony years you're you're saying that in his in his opinion these people didn't have that intent and therefore the defendant here didn't and i suspect the next time he's called as a witness he'll say the same thing because he didn't believe mr robinson at that intent do you have any support for that specific type of evidence forty nine that is you simply isn't in the briefing when it comes to that particular testimony he has waived any issue regarding that particular thing and because he didn't object to a blow he would have to argue claim error about it but given that he hasn't even raised the law i guess that would be it was a asking whether you have three million with any authority allowing that sort of test and i don't think that it's improper testimony here i'm not sure which case i would need i can certainly try to find a twenty a j on that given that he didn't raise it with respect to that particular testimony i didn't pull a case for that but the notion that an officer can testify about his experience that you know if he's done numerous of these particular a trafficking operations and every time or the vast majority of the time i think  he hasn't had one where it didn't occur whether to ask them right away but i think that is proper it's experience testimony especially he's not testifying about necessarily the defendant's mindset when he says that he's testifying about how he experience sufficiency to hold given given that you have the numerous statements between nicky and mr robinson given the fake id given him testifying on the stand against the government's theory on the jury not finding him credible so you certainly don't have to rely on that  that could have been confusing to the jury i do your honor and the jury or jury instructions enough to guard against that confusion i think they are your honor i think we regularly are now calling for some kind of bifurcation presentation between fact and expert testimony there was some case for suggesting that might be a proper way to do it this court has said you know we're not we're look response because we seem to be so we're seeing this issue more often these days this interspersing testimony from the investigator in a criminal case and best practices might be well to try and separate the two statements in the in the in the underlying text messages or or social media messages as they may be in which he made that clear