evidence that she had stolen the person that night at an offense that had absolutely nothing to do with the charge defense and served only to me think nothing to do it i mean if you think there's no connection at all with what it to the scene but that was never in dispute she never disputed that she was at the scene of the mill although i thought she said that she remained in the car the whole time when the other folks were at the mailbox that's when the fact that an item the rush card was found at the scene by being in the backseat doesn't that also show her intent in sharing the proceeds of that purse with the co defendants which is part of the allegation of the conspiracy charge instead of stealing the spruce from the woman's window where she was sleeping at the gas station she had gone in to the for the store part of the station and seeing an open cash register grabbing money another car she then shares the contents with the members in her car the coconspirators and then continued driving to several other locations where are there is the breaking of the mailboxes doesn't that timing provide circumstantial evidence but it's all part of the continuum of criminal conduct as the lower court held opportunity that if if you even if you find that the conspiracy started when she picked up these people the hotel room it was only charged it was to drive around and find mailboxes and break into nothing to do with some generalized crime spree and to bring that idea was to start more and in this case if the fact that she drove to the first location the other folks got out of the car broke into a mailbox but for unsuccessfully tried to get into the mailbox they then get back into the car and she drives them to a second location does the fact that she was there when the first attempt was unsuccessful and then drove them to the second attempt also constitute circumstantial evidence of her intent to assist them in what they were doing yes it does but that's not i mean there was no argument there was and i think you were  checks things like that were wrong now that's correct and therefore if she was helping them commit milf they have to try to get identities checks things like that why isn't that also circumstantial evidence the conspiracy charge because the conspiracy as charged with respect to the bank fraud focused on them as as present by the governor focused on this intertwined with that it was necessary to offer a coherent and comprehensive story because it showed the defendant's intent the scope of her agreement and placed her at the scene first as the district court noted it was part of a continuum of criminal conduct that began at the latest when defendant picked up her coconspirators at a hotel from there she drove them with two backpacks and  the mailboxes that they would vandalized on the way she stopped at a gas station where she stole the purse that was likely to contain the very things that they were looking for in the mail access devices checks and personal identifying information that she told that person and then share the contents with her coconspirators shows both her criminal intent and her intent to participate in the mail  conspiracy with the purse was stolen after the men were picked up and they were in the car with her i'm sorry on i did was unclear but the men were in the car with her when the purse was taken yes absolutely your honor in fact the defendant to commit crimes that night and find the raw materials for their bank fraud conspiracy that they would all then share which cuts against her defense that she was simply an unwitting driver unaware of the criminal plans of her coconspirator you saying that because she shared the contents of the purse with a codefendant that's also circumstantial evidence that they're also planning on sharing the proceeds from the bank fraud activity yes absolutely your honor and specifically the fact that they the materials you would find in the mail that they were looking for access devices checks personal identifying information is parallel to what they were looking for in the mail it's even stronger circumstantial evidence that they intended to share the proceeds of their  just three days earlier but that she intended to do so again second this evidence places the defendant and her coconspirators at the scene of the crime card allowed for reasonable and friends that it was the defendant the person who admitted to stealing the purse who left the card at the scene therefore cutting against her argument that she was merely present and that she did not participate in the mail  door your honor we can't place exactly where the car was we don't have surveillance we only have misheard mantises testimony about this which is even stronger even more of a reason why this evidence was important because was the only piece of physical evidence that placed the defendants at the scene this evidence was properly balanced by the district court judge walter considered this in light of the potential prejudice and decided to give a jury instruction to cure any potential prejudice from arising from it he instructed the jury that they were only there to determine whether the defendant was guilty or not of the charges in the indictment and it was not on trial for any other conduct or offense not charged in the indictment judge walter had a firm grasp of the facts in this case carefully considered the issues in light of that understanding and used his judgment to allow this evidence to be admitted at trial that judgment should not be displayed here because the decision was neither illogical nor implausible unless there are any further questions about the first issue all take effect in issue the second issue is whether  sufficient evidence supports the bank fraud conspiracy conviction and this question is viewed in the light most favorable to the government and construing inferences in favor of the guilty verdict a conspiracy can be inferred when there is a concert of action with the defendants working together toward a common purpose here the jury could reasonably infer that that common purpose was to commit bank fraud conspiracy given that the mail was all over the car and the pieces that were opened were those that looks like they contained checks access devices or personal identifying information these items have little or no intrinsic value they are not like a package of goods they can only be used to commit a bank fraud scheme the jury could reasonably infer also that they were opening these pocket these pieces of mail to look for checks because they had each committed bank fraud before they all got together that night defend had done so just three days earlier when she cashed the check that was also stolen from the mail defendants work together toward this common purpose of committing bank fraud by getting in the car together driving to not one but two locations when they couldn't break into the mailbox is that the first then opening the mail and looking for the raw materials for their bank fraud as they looked for those raw materials in the purse that defendant hernandez had stolen earlier in the night evidence of a common modus operandi among the defendants in the months leading up to the time they still naile together is also circumstantial proof of their agreement to steal checks then cash them or excuse me washed them and then cash them before they were caught stealing they'll together on march eleventh each of the defendants had fraudulent lee altered and deposited a check stolen from the mail in fact each defendant had actually possessed attack that was stolen from the community mail receptacle that was pried open in the very same manner that they pried open the community mail receptacle on march eleventh each of the prior victims lived close to one another each defendant targeted the same type of mail they each had a check that had been sent from a bank to the mail theft victim in fact defendants to coconspirators even possessed checks belonging to the same victims from the same tack book and negotiated them with one within one day of one another this is compelling evidence of a conspiracy and once the government has established a conspiracy it need only show a slight connection between the defendant and that conspiracy the slight connection is established by defendant actions on march eleventh when she picked up her coconspirators drove them to two locations to see all mail opened mail with them and books for the raw materials for their bank fraud for these reasons substantial evidence supported this conviction and this conviction should be affirmed thank you thank you coun so there was absolutely unnecessary to show a presence or second with respect to her active participation in breaking in the mailbox because the card was outside  ain that there was never offered as part of the rationale and in fact the government in its argument never urge that fact this is sort of revisionist history here and there you've got a tough subject to harmless error analysis cracked that's correct so even if the court made a mistake and let too much evidence and why wasn't it harmless the evidence seemed pretty pretty compelling  along so yes the jury rejected that but in part the jury rejected that because the government piled on with evidence that once innocent we've got your argument thank you very much both sides of the matter submitted for