have back to the regular schedule that would be government of the virgin islands versus let's some this case were particularly egregious because they were the result of prosecutorial misconduct the record is completely clear that mr taylor was in fact as important to the events that led up to the unfortunate  executed and the at by the time of trial detective actually testified that the government had no knowledge as to her whereabouts the prosecutor had actually had missed taylor and her children removed from the jurisdiction and sent to florida so it was only the prosecutor who have you knowledge of where mr taylor was and how to locate her this is complete prosecut used that trial now the trial court and defense apparently below are and of the mistaken impression that there was no means to the term or to the jurisdiction and on the second day of trial and passing the prosecutor term the prosecutor mentioned that ok a material witness off a day that could have been available but those were you know that was less than ten or twenty words out of three days of trial prior to that the government's position was judicial system is composed the way it is so that these types of errors don't happen even if the lawyer is under mistaken belief the trial john should have known that yes i have the power to do this but the child drudge is the person who really all those questions in turn that it was not harmless and the problem with that is that these types of errors are in fact structural and they mandate vacate or that's what the supreme court has been leaning towards and that's what it teaches particularly in gonzales lopez when the court in knowledge eyes the right to counsel of choice to be in to this particular right to have compulsory process  relevant your honor because it contradicts your second statement where she goes and she implicates two other people besides herself and in doing so when she made that second statement she informed the collector fits that she i let some hand fact reason characterize that as overwhelming evidence the evidence was not so overwhelming and that's a problem with another one of the issues because yes there was some d n a evidence there were fingerprints outside a was found on a water bottle but not all of the evidence rose to the level of scientific certainty and having only two weeks to retain an expert and have that expert analyze the d n a evidence the expert going to be able to analyze the results that wouldn't have been possible until the two weeks right before the trial that wouldn't be sufficient we did not have the specific items that were added it was the only thing that we that mr let's assume and mr taylor cared for each other mr watson is very protective of her and frankly just looking at her statements alone you can see that her statements throughout are very inconsistent so there's no basis to believe anything that she said in the second statement any more than as a basis to believe anything else that she said we can or arsons help you be the opportunity to question the governments our actions removing her for it's clear that the intent is there all along her testimony would have been helpful and moreover the jury sent a question to the court well it was deliberating saying why didn't your appear to testify at trial it's clear that in addition to standing alone are sufficient to say that you know he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in that sense your honor we believe again that these confessions were first of all well first of all the they were your honor in order for an order because my client desired to protect ms taylor the first statement that he made to the police was made after given a b v i caution statement which that doesn't negate the fact that mr hayward statements should have come in his confession standing alone as law sufficient to solidify any of the charges against him he confessed to these crimes his confessions were inconsistent his good morning may it please the court i'm kimberly sauls very insistent attorney general representing the people of the virgin islands in this matter it's hard to know where to begin with the government moving  yes your honor the government was led to believe by that witness that she was in danger in her children were in danger and we assisted a witness and relocating to remove her from that danger the man she claimed  she feared had committed murder and it seemed like a justifiable reason to assist someone getting out of the territory there was absolutely no prejudice the defendant was perfectly capable of subpoenaing or filing a material witness affidavit where they determined the wrong impression that they couldn't do that is beyond me and all of the whereabouts of this witness yes they were told she was in florida i was never hidden from the defense what i believe happened in what seems clear is that the defense was scrambling prior to trial two of the issues presented for review show that the defense was scrambling they were looking for a motion to continue to get a d n a d n a expert and they also can find one of the witnesses at the last minute that they wanted to testify this is not going to be a witness for the prosecution and that's what's vitally important in this case our cases and you can issue a material witness affidavit that's all in the record the government informed both the defense counsel and the trial judge that this person could be subpoenaed and could appear to testify for some reason they didn't believe him or they chose not to do so there is also evidence that the judge did not believe that this testimony was going to help the defendant she thought that it proved motive for the defendant and that it was not favorable that's also all in the back what he confessed to that was at the very heart of the fire so that witness was about as crucial witnesses as a defense group could have i must be misunderstanding your honor because in my mind and i believe in the trial judge's mind this is going to prove just be another point of clarification as to why he committed all of these crimes as opposed to exonerating him in any way whatsoever he would have shown he is his his defense in part was he he didn't commit the offense is he went and actually made a confession because you wanted to protect her i say whether true or not that was part of the defense's  and that was a logical question since they had been read all of her testimony prior to deliberation which was something that the defense about yes what do you make of the judge and i think the fit to subpoena this witness it is also troubling that the defense counsel didn't object to the reading of the testimony if they now find it so troubling that i believe is invited error they didn't object at the time they they information what was to be so that it wouldn't be objectionable but it was objectionable from the start if they were as they are now claiming that it hurt their case at the time they thought it was going to help their case and that's why it's invited your area your honor and shouldn't be on appeal in the first place not seem to believe that her testimony would help the defense and there was an abundance of evidence that helped to help the jury find mr watson guilty in addition to his confessions there was physical evidence a evidence that was presented to the jury so his confessions were corroborated as would be necessary so there i don't recall those comments your honor i'm sorry so you agree with the judge with respect to the yes i do but i believe that error is harmless and that the harmless error standard does apply in this case because this is not a structural defect the u s supreme court has never declared it to be a structural defect did the prosecutor have information as to the precise location of mr miller in florida not the precise location unfortunately i believe the evidence shows that the government assisted her in purchasing a plane ticket to florida for herself and her children but they did not know exactly where she was living after she arrived but they did there was evidence in the in the record that they did help her relocate opinion was found in twenty three teens i think it's five years not that that was it in the twenty ten but it was fully briefed two years before it was ready to be decided that's entirely possible and i know i don't know the answer to that  it is very difficult in the virgin islands to get these kinds of analysis done it's all sent off island and we are at the mercy of the labs in florida and so it is no one's fault how long it takes for it to come back but the defense was well aware from march and the trial wasn't until august that this was going to be an issue they had plenty of time to procure an expert of their own who then would have had yes two weeks but time because he would have known it was coming to review the analysis and then they they would have needed a continuance and obviously that's what the judge felt as well that this continuance was not necessary and was through no fault of anyone but themselves with the members of the  on notice as to all the charges all the charges are listed there they were all involved it was a minor it was nothing additional it was just a minor amendment and they were prejudice in any way whatsoever couldn't be subpoenaed and he did try to make the defense counsel and the judge aware of that and i said i cited to the appendix where your honour's can read that he specifically said she can be subpoenaed that we've done this in other cases your hon the people in an effort to inform the defense and the judge joined appendix volume three page six sixty seven that she now lived in florida and that she could be that there was anything to remand all of the sentences were within the statutory minimum and there was some of them were even merged together  the gravity of the offense here certainly equals the severity of the sentences we don't believe there was anything to reverse on that matter there's nothing further ok jury and another issue the government service is that mystery was in florida so we could have subpoenaed her we can't issue a subpoena in the state of florida we need to know where ms taylor is florida is a pretty big state that i'm sure there are counties there that have a greater population than the entire virgin islands once the government sent her there and didn't bother to keep track of her location or had her location in didn't reveal it to the defendant  have sufficient time to prepare to defend those charges new charges were added in the trial court's judgment a commitment she specifically states that without the essential elements no crime is alleged will serving only permits amendment if no new crime is alleged the trial court's ruling is inconsistent with the federal rules of criminal procedure that is stated in its own judgment and commitment second is no evidence there is nothing to suggest that four am is the night time the only cases in this jurisdiction that have dealt with thought dealt with cases before midnight and there was no evidence presented that this