so now i'll call the next case and that's united states versus alston orlando williams you're on i'm just waiting for the prosecutor he's got to switch gears like yeah he's been on a different hat good morning your honors me please the court my name is gail stage and i represent mr williams and this particular case as i'm sure your honour's have seen by reading the briefs of the  parties the facts are really really it's it's a very difficult case but nevertheless there were some errors made below that are important and go directly to the heart of some of the convictions and certainly to the entry of the restitution order mr williams was charged in eleven counts with essentially sex trafficking several women sometimes they were juveniles and then when they grew to be adults that resulted in a separate count in this case the jury acquitted mr williams of all of the cases relating to women that were only traffic i shouldn't say trafficked but were only charged in the adult round so the jury convicted mr williams of sex trafficking minor d l both as a minor when she turned it to became an adult and he was also convicted of obstructing the in forstmann sex trafficking laws which are really relevant to the facts that we've raised in this case it's i mportant to note that d archos she was the subject of counts nine in ten she chose not to participate in any way in this case the parties did try to depose her but that deposition was not admitted  evidence and she made it clear that she didn't want anything to do is the case and specifically she made it clear to an investigator with the public defender's office that she wanted nothing to do with any order of restitution in this case the district court and like to talk about the restitution order the district chords chose to go ahead and order restitution for d r in the amount of two hundred and eleven hundred and twenty one thousand dollars despite the fact that she did not file any affidavit and she affirmatively told an investigator that she didn't want to get involved  for any offense under the sex trafficking chapter and in this case the just record held an evidentiary hearing and heard from the government and from the parties in r the government argued that no matter whether or not d r wanted to participate in this case that the district court was required to order restitution and we argued that that was not the case the district court relied upon a nd circuit decision united states versus johnson which really relate to whether or not if a victim does not want to participate and does not want restitution can the district court unilaterally order that the money be donated to the crime victims fund we're not really there in this case this case is more like a case that was argued below called speakman and in spe the th circuit held that if a victim did not want restitution that the district court could not order restitution because restitution assists actually tory creature are trying very hard to get away from using the word shall in legal drafting because as  versus lamont go on that's one hundred and fifteen supreme court to twenty seven those shall generally means must legal writers sometimes use or misuse shall to mean should will or even may chords in virtually every english speaking jurisdiction have held by necessity that shall means may in some contexts and vice versa and what the court did victim to participate in the restitution process but if a victim does not want to the statute section three hundred and sixty three dollars a subsection she specifically states that there is no requirement that a victim participate in restitution and a case cited by the government specifically east interesting lay it's not a published opinion  victims only five victims came forward and said we want restitution and as a result the district court entered an order adding up those five victims restitution in the court that oh well i have to go ahead and order restitution for these other victims that are not coming forward yet it's a question i have as i think this is a tricky a tricky issue one point of order in restitution is to provide money to the dims yes but restitution i think we've said other courts have said it in the criminal context is also a form of punishment on to the offender so that the primary goal of restitution is remedial or compensatory compensatory although it also serves some purpose for punitive purposes there are two other opinions isn't that reflection have congressional recognition that sex track in trafficking victims are notoriously traumatized and have a difficult time sometimes even testifying and maybe after they've been terrorized for years are not wanting to be involved in this process doesn't doesn't that reflect the unique situation of sex trafficking victims your honor there are many ways that is the extract trafficking victim can participate in the restitution process just as happened in this case with the other two victims in which the government you know they testified during the trial about how many hours they were company days a week they were the government then took that information and then just a court was permitted to consider the trial evidence of course and the point is the point is that they don't have to do that right i mean there's a specific allowed in a statute that they don't have to participate in the restitution process but it doesn't say anything to the effect of if they don't then no restitution should be ordered but the statute goes on to say that restitution is for the victims and a victim chooses not to participate then you who you have to assume that the victim doesn't want any part of the restitution which is exactly what d r said in this case the district court chose to reject some of the testimony by the investigator because the best skater did not tell d r exactly how much she was entitled to r didn't want to participate in this case from the beginning not for the trial she wanted nothing to do with the restitution and again just like that's not a typical unsexed having his visit i'm sorry that's not atypical sex trafficking cases is it for the victims unit not wished for his fate i i don't know what would be considered typical your honor i just know that there are many ways of the government to establish the proper amount of restitution what exactly so i think in this case you know you make a good point that is pretty clear the victim doesn't want to participate didn't want the restitution but if we follow your logic about where the line is i guess my point is what exactly i mean it seems like we're almost requiring the victim to participate because the victim either asked to say i do want to restitution or i don't want to restitution i think judge grants question sort of saying what if we just don't hear from the victim well in his case like that i mean i just i and this may not matter for this case for i was trying to figure out i was supposed to work i mean so i here's a testimony about what a victim told investigators is like that that would be the standard is i was the victim told the investigator at some point that she didn't want to  finally there is another mechanism that's a defendant doesn't want the restitution they can always ask that it be given to the crime victim finds and that's the very reason that that provision is there so there are other avenues to  remainder of our briefs your honor for the remainder of the arguments that order of restitution may be enforced by the united states but all other are available on reasonable means it also reiterated the mandatory exception that's been determined by congress but it does have discretion to how to collect and distribute th thank you your honor i wanted to st speak regarding the videos it seems like the government really wants to have it both ways the government claim that that there was ample evidence from the actual testimony of not only the three women who were the subject of of the actual convictions but also three other  women in which the jury acquitted mr williams and they testified to various acts they say their testimony was cumulative some of them testified regarding the exact same thing and what  mr williams argued was that you know that the prescreening really went to or just simply the overall content and evidence that this jury was going to hear and at a minimum he asked that there be some covering up of genitals or something of that nature if you're going to show the videos if you're going to show the pictures your honor then at least asked the government to somehow cover up the nudity  and the court chose not even to do that so the government argued that the defense mentioned the videos in its closing but once the defendant lost that particular argument you have to find a way to deal with it before the jury and that's what the defendant chose to do there's no question that these videos were highly prejudicial and  you know the prejudicial value certainly outweigh the probative value on and in regards to again restitution the cases that the government is citing are really cases that yes it's  a mandatory victim restitution act but it is clear that all of the courts that have taken a look at the the mandatory restitution act relating to the  victim protection at the trafficking act are worded similarly they have similar goals and in fact five thousand and ninety three specifically refers back to using three v and so in that case that's a distinction without a difference and again the cases cited by the government are really cases in which the courts were talking about whether or not a court could unilaterally assign restitution to the crime victims in speak when it's a little different speaking as a case in which the waves the civically said just like in this case that she did not want to participate and the government offered absolutely no contradictory evidence during the restitution hearing that somehow d r was coerced into not participating d r did not want to participate long before mr williams may have reached out to her in some you restitution are you know i'm not and in this case the evidence at the restaurant at the rest touche and hearing was that she was not interested in restitution that's an e mail that she sent to  investigator that he testified to and you know i'm clearly speculating but in all likelihood she didn't sign the affidavit because she just didn't want anything to do further with this case she had she didn't want to put her in anything including signing a sworn statements and again just simply not informing her of the amount of the restitution shouldn't make a any difference whatsoever it's do you want restitution or don't you there's nothing in the records to show that if she had known she's going to get two hundred and twenty one thousand dollars or something of that nature that she would have changed her mind and decided to participate that's just pure speculation now on the part of the court and of the government so we would ask that this court find that the two hundred and twenty one thousand dollars restitution order to d r was improper and b k that and we rely upon all the arguments in the rest of our brief thank you