[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:00:02] Speaker 02:
Welcome to Saipan.

[00:00:03] Speaker 02:
My name is Eric O'Malley.

[00:00:04] Speaker 02:
I represent the United States.

[00:00:07] Speaker ?:
Thank you.

[00:00:07] Speaker 02:
I would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal, please.

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
We'll do our best.

[00:00:11] Speaker 03:
We didn't do very good the last one.

[00:00:13] Speaker 02:
Let's try.

[00:00:14] Speaker 03:
All the time in the world.

[00:00:15] Speaker 03:
Go ahead.

[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
A jury in this courtroom heard the evidence, followed the judge's instructions, and decided that Mei-Feng Wang was guilty of conspiring to transport illegal aliens

[00:00:29] Speaker 02:
and aiding and abetting the transportation of illegal aliens.

[00:00:33] Speaker 02:
Initially, the trial court agreed with that decision.

[00:00:36] Speaker 02:
But after a few weeks of reflection, it reversed course and decided that, in fact, the jury got it wrong.

[00:00:43] Speaker 02:
It overturned the verdict.

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
It took it away from the jury.

[00:00:47] Speaker 02:
I am here today to ask this court to reinstate that verdict.

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
From the very beginning, from when the defendant was first interviewed, she tried to portray this situation as essentially no different than buying a ticket on a ferry to Guam.

[00:01:04] Speaker 02:
But that's not what happened.

[00:01:06] Speaker 02:
This was an organic enterprise that began when the defendant Wang and eight other

[00:01:13] Speaker 02:
illegal aliens here unlawfully decided that it would be easier for them to prolong their stay in the United States by going to Guam because that's where the jobs were.

[00:01:25] Speaker 02:
It ended with a midnight helicopter rescue by the United States Navy and with the conviction of three locals who prior to this were just ordinary fishermen.

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
As I said, the jury decided that Ms.

[00:01:41] Speaker 02:
Wang should share some of the responsibility for that conduct.

[00:01:47] Speaker 02:
But the trial court overturned that verdict.

[00:01:53] Speaker 02:
Now, when deciding to charge this case, as we do with all of our cases, we look first at the statutes and the elements of the crime.

[00:02:02] Speaker 02:
In this case, we first alleged conspiracy to transport illegal aliens.

[00:02:07] Speaker 02:
We asked ourselves, is there evidence that Ms.

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
Wang asked whether there was an agreement between two or more people to transport illegal aliens?

[00:02:18] Speaker 02:
Yes, there was.

[00:02:20] Speaker 02:
Next.

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
So Council, specifically, what evidence was presented to the jury to support the conspiracy charge against Ms.

[00:02:28] Speaker 00:
Wang?

[00:02:29] Speaker 02:
Well, there's all of the stipulations that established that Ms.

[00:02:33] Speaker 02:
Wang participated in all of the meetings, the initial meeting at the World Mission Church, as well as the meeting with the subgroup.

[00:02:43] Speaker 02:
She, based on the phone records, it appeared that she organized that meeting with the subgroup.

[00:02:50] Speaker 03:
They went to the- Sorry to interrupt, but let me just, as you go through this, paying for her own transport is not enough, correct?

[00:02:59] Speaker 02:
I would not necessarily agree with that, but I think.

[00:03:02] Speaker 03:
What case tells me otherwise, because I thought that there is case law here that says when it's regarding your own participation, I mean, for your own transport, it's not enough.

[00:03:14] Speaker 03:
So if you can point me to a case then.

[00:03:16] Speaker 02:
There are cases in other districts that have said that if all they're doing is paying for passage.

[00:03:21] Speaker 03:
Give me your best one for this point here, because as you go forward, I wanna make sure we're trying to figure out what

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
evidence was before the jury.

[00:03:31] Speaker 03:
So I'm trying to supplement, I guess, the question that Judge Rawlinson just asked you, that supports the conspiracy that didn't involve the transportation of her own self.

[00:03:45] Speaker 02:
I think the case law, while a couple of other circuits have decided that if the situation is just

[00:03:53] Speaker 02:
a mere fee paying passenger.

[00:03:54] Speaker 02:
I believe the Selena's case in the Eighth Circuit came to that conclusion.

[00:03:59] Speaker 02:
There is currently no similar case in the Ninth Circuit.

[00:04:02] Speaker 02:
Whereas the prevailing law, the overwhelming authority says that if a person's participation is more than meet fee paying passenger, then responsibility can attach.

[00:04:15] Speaker 00:
That's the question I had is what is the evidence

[00:04:19] Speaker 00:
that this defendant was more than just a fee-paying passenger?

[00:04:24] Speaker 02:
Well, let's begin with the video.

[00:04:29] Speaker 02:
The fact that she was shopping for a boat that was about the same size as the boat that was eventually used, that was found on her phone at the beginning of the day.

[00:04:38] Speaker 01:
A boat that was never used, though?

[00:04:40] Speaker 02:
A boat that was never used.

[00:04:43] Speaker 02:
What else?

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
But jurors could rationally infer that, based on their knowledge and experience,

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
She is a alien living unlawfully in Saipan.

[00:04:54] Speaker 02:
She's probably not shopping for a boat so that she can start a parasailing business.

[00:04:58] Speaker 00:
But was that evidence that she was shopping for a boat for someone other than herself to be transported?

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
Jurors could rationally infer that, particularly when measured against all of the evidence, the other evidence that was introduced, which would include the fact that she appeared, she was present at the initial meeting

[00:05:18] Speaker 02:
She made phone calls that jurors could rationally infer was to arrange the meeting in the car with the subgroup where money was paid to Ms.

[00:05:29] Speaker 02:
Kutaito.

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
The fact that she was in the backseat.

[00:05:33] Speaker 03:
Her presence at the other meetings, isn't that, I'm just trying to figure out, that could just be furthering her own transportation.

[00:05:46] Speaker 03:
Where's the evidence that she bought in, I guess, and conspired in such a way that she is doing it to support someone other than herself.

[00:05:58] Speaker 03:
That's where I think it sounds like the questions are really being pointed to for you to respond to.

[00:06:08] Speaker 02:
I don't think that that's necessary.

[00:06:09] Speaker 02:
The law of conspiracy doesn't require any evidence that someone enters a conspiracy with the intent of trying to help other people.

[00:06:19] Speaker 02:
The law of conspiracy, as soon as you join a criminal enterprise, the individual purpose becomes the common purpose.

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
And that's what we had in this case.

[00:06:29] Speaker 01:
Once these- I wanted to just go back and clarify one thing, because as I understand it, the district court

[00:06:35] Speaker 01:
instructed the jury that to find the defendant liable of transporting an undocumented immigrant, the transported immigrant has to be somebody other than the defendant, right?

[00:06:51] Speaker 02:
That is how the court instructed the jury.

[00:06:54] Speaker 01:
And did you challenge that instruction?

[00:06:56] Speaker 01:
We did not, because that was not.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
So it seems to me that's the baseline here is that you can't be held liable for transporting yourself.

[00:07:05] Speaker 01:
So now you're trying to, what I understand you're trying to do is say, but there's evidence here of a conspiracy that would involve others, correct?

[00:07:14] Speaker 02:
Yes, your honor.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
And so let's go back to that evidence.

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
We talked about the boat, the meeting in the car, everybody paid their quote deposit.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
And then that was called off and the money was given back, correct?

[00:07:30] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
So what impact does that have on the alleged conspiracy?

[00:07:35] Speaker 02:
I don't see that it has any impact because they rejoined the conspiracy.

[00:07:39] Speaker 02:
At some point they decided that in fact they would go and she ended up paying the $2,500 that went to buy the boat and when the time came she got on the boat.

[00:07:52] Speaker 02:
got on the boat just before dusk and traveled at night.

[00:07:55] Speaker 02:
All of that, I think, speaks to the pretty indisputable fact that this was a clandestine effort to evade detection.

[00:08:03] Speaker 03:
So anytime someone is trying to transport themselves, but they join a group and they're aware of a group, you think that's sufficient for them to be a co-conspirator?

[00:08:14] Speaker 02:
I think that if there's evidence that shows that that person did more than just pay a fee on a ferry ride.

[00:08:22] Speaker 03:
What did she do more than pay the fee?

[00:08:26] Speaker 03:
And I mean, the attending meetings, I'm not sure that gets you there, but okay, I heard you on that.

[00:08:32] Speaker 03:
And then the paying the money and then getting it back, I'm not sure that gets you, what else do you have besides that?

[00:08:39] Speaker 02:
She met with Ms.

[00:08:40] Speaker 02:
Hutite to know in the back of the car, she handled the money.

[00:08:44] Speaker 00:
She handled the money on behalf of everyone.

[00:08:46] Speaker 00:
Is that your position?

[00:08:48] Speaker 02:
Yes, she handled, but she was the comptroller, if you will.

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
She handled the money.

[00:08:53] Speaker 02:
She turned it over.

[00:08:54] Speaker 02:
She videoed who types, no counting the money as a form of digital.

[00:08:59] Speaker 01:
That's the video in the car, right?

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
Yes, correct.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
And then I guess it's Ms.

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
Hutano says, I now have money for each of you.

[00:09:08] Speaker 01:
So is it clear that she's doing that on behalf of everybody or she's just holding the money that everybody's contributed?

[00:09:15] Speaker 02:
The law of conspiracy and the law of aiding and abetting doesn't require much involvement at all.

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
Any minor contribution counts.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
And in this case,

[00:09:27] Speaker 02:
her contributions, her arranging that meeting, her shopping for the boat at the beginning.

[00:09:33] Speaker 03:
To arrange the meeting.

[00:09:35] Speaker 03:
What was the proof that she arranged the meeting?

[00:09:38] Speaker 02:
The telephone calls.

[00:09:39] Speaker 02:
And while we didn't have the text of those calls, but rational jurors can infer that because the only calls that were made that day were between Hu Taitano and Wang, that, and that was the day of the meeting that

[00:09:55] Speaker 02:
they could rationally infer that it was Wang that arranged that meeting and move ahead.

[00:10:01] Speaker 02:
She was the one that was sitting in the back of the car, handling the money and recording the transaction.

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
I think also something, the aiding and abetting theory really got very superficial treatment in both the order and the defense, the appellee's response.

[00:10:22] Speaker 02:
And that's unfortunate because I think that that was actually the stronger theory.

[00:10:26] Speaker 02:
And I feel it bears noting that the instructions that were cited by the court's order were different than the instructions that were given at trial.

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
In the court's order, she, the court- You're talking about the rule 29 order?

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:10:48] Speaker 02:
They cite the instructions that were given by a case, a Ninth Circuit case, USVC.

[00:10:53] Speaker 02:
Those elements required both the specific intent for the defendant to want to facilitate the primary, but also the required intent of committing the underlying crime.

[00:11:09] Speaker 02:
The jury, however, was instructed with the Ninth Circuit model jury instructions that requires the intent to facilitate the crime.

[00:11:21] Speaker 02:
The decision overturning the verdict was based on the lack of Ms.

[00:11:26] Speaker 02:
Wang's intent to further the crime.

[00:11:31] Speaker 02:
And this is significant because lack of evidence that Ms.

[00:11:36] Speaker 02:
Wang wanted to further the unlawful presence of others.

[00:11:40] Speaker 02:
But this is significant because the model rules contemplate a situation where it's whether or not

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
Wang wanted to further the unlawful presence of other aliens.

[00:11:52] Speaker 02:
What matters is whether Ms.

[00:11:53] Speaker 02:
Hutaiteno or Mr. Sablan wanted to further the unlawful presence of

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
illegal aliens, and whether or not Ms.

[00:12:01] Speaker 02:
Wang knew that that's what Hu Taitano or Mr. Sablan wanted to do.

[00:12:06] Speaker 02:
Clearly, she did.

[00:12:07] Speaker 02:
She participated in all the meetings.

[00:12:10] Speaker 02:
She got on the boat.

[00:12:11] Speaker 02:
She knew that all of these other aliens were going.

[00:12:14] Speaker 02:
She knew that Hu Taitano's purpose was getting all of them to Guam so that they could further their own lawful presence.

[00:12:21] Speaker 02:
And so based on that, the theory of aiding and abetting should have been upheld.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
Do you have a best case for you that someone similar to Ms.

[00:12:33] Speaker 03:
Wang's situation here level participation is sufficient?

[00:12:39] Speaker 03:
Can you give us your best case?

[00:12:41] Speaker 02:
Sure.

[00:12:43] Speaker 02:
King Ping Zhang.

[00:12:45] Speaker 02:
It was not a conviction based from this court and a decision that was approved by the Ninth Circuit.

[00:12:53] Speaker 02:
That theory was... It was in the Ninth Circuit, you said?

[00:12:56] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:12:56] Speaker 02:
And it was a 371 case, client conspiracy, which conspiracy to obstruct the government function

[00:13:04] Speaker 02:
very similar fact pattern, if not identical for all intents and purposes.

[00:13:08] Speaker 02:
And the court upheld the theory that a group of aliens can conspire in this fashion to obstruct a government function.

[00:13:16] Speaker 02:
And even though that was a slightly different statute, it may not be a twin statute, but it's certainly a sibling to this statute.

[00:13:23] Speaker 02:
The essence, the core essence is that it is obstructive conduct that can, you know, the government will acknowledge that

[00:13:33] Speaker 02:
The Congress probably did not intend to criminalize someone who overstays a visa, but if they collaborate to break the law and further their unlawful presence, then

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
There's no reason why, just because they are an unlawful alien, that they should be immune from being prosecuted for that crime.

[00:13:54] Speaker 01:
I don't see that in your briefs, but maybe you can just provide the court with the citation afterwards.

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
Certainly, Your Honor.

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
Did you want to reserve your minute?

[00:14:05] Speaker 03:
Yes, thank you.

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:14:34] Speaker 04:
I'm Richard Miller.

[00:14:35] Speaker 04:
I'm here on behalf of defendant in this case, unusually appellee, Maythong Wang and may it please the court.

[00:14:45] Speaker 04:
When the district court granted Ms.

[00:14:47] Speaker 04:
Wang's motion for judgment of acquittal, it reached the right result and for the right reasons.

[00:14:54] Speaker 04:
With respect to both conspiracy and aiding and abetting,

[00:14:58] Speaker 04:
It found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms.

[00:15:03] Speaker 04:
Wang intended to further the illegal transport of aliens.

[00:15:10] Speaker 04:
With respect to conspiracy alone, it also found the evidence insufficient to prove that she had agreed to smuggle other undocumented aliens.

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
And the reason the court,

[00:15:25] Speaker 04:
didn't go farther into the specific intent to facilitate element for aiding or bedding because the court had already found that she didn't intend to further the illegal transport.

[00:15:38] Speaker 04:
So it didn't need to go to the specific intent.

[00:15:41] Speaker 04:
And that's perfectly reasonable and correct.

[00:15:50] Speaker 04:
The district court did not require the government to disprove alternative innocent inferences from such evidence as the boat video and life jacket photo.

[00:16:02] Speaker 04:
It merely observed

[00:16:05] Speaker 04:
that such inferences were reasonable, while the inference of guilt, which the government urged the jury to make, was not reasonable.

[00:16:16] Speaker 00:
So counsel, you heard us go through with opposing counsel the evidence that the government asserts supports the conviction.

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
So for instance, with the video,

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
your client was there in the car, and the government says that she collected money on behalf of everyone and presented it.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
Do you agree with that assertion?

[00:16:41] Speaker 04:
No, I don't, Your Honor.

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
Why not?

[00:16:42] Speaker 04:
Because there was no evidence that she collected the money.

[00:16:45] Speaker 00:
Did she pay the money that she gave?

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
Was it more than for her own personal transport?

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
There was no evidence that she gave that money.

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
What do you mean there's no evidence there was no evidence that it was transferred from her to the other person?

[00:16:58] Speaker 04:
There was evidence that she's holding

[00:16:59] Speaker 04:
that she's holding the money up and taking a picture of it in order to show, okay, $500.

[00:17:07] Speaker 04:
So she's documenting, look, we gave $500 to Ms.

[00:17:14] Speaker 04:
Titanow.

[00:17:16] Speaker 04:
And she's documenting.

[00:17:17] Speaker 01:
But then the government says, you know, taking inferences in favor of the government, given where we are, that in fact, she's holding money for everybody.

[00:17:29] Speaker 01:
for five people, $500, right?

[00:17:31] Speaker 04:
And that's the video.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
And then we have a little transcript.

[00:17:35] Speaker 01:
Now that we have the video that basically said that who Tanya was saying, I now have the money for all of you, right?

[00:17:45] Speaker 01:
I mean, why she took the video, I don't know.

[00:17:48] Speaker 01:
But we do have the video.

[00:17:51] Speaker 01:
And so isn't that the best evidence that she was doing more than acting for herself?

[00:17:57] Speaker 04:
I don't know that I would call it the best evidence, but I would address that, certainly address that evidence.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
Not insignificant.

[00:18:03] Speaker 04:
I understand.

[00:18:03] Speaker 04:
If the court thinks that that's the best evidence, I'm happy to address it.

[00:18:07] Speaker 03:
Well, because we have to look at this, as you know, in the light of what's favorable to the government and whether a reasonable juror could draw that inference.

[00:18:16] Speaker 04:
Yes, I do understand that.

[00:18:18] Speaker 03:
So tell us why not with the money shot.

[00:18:22] Speaker 04:
because even if the jury can reasonably infer that she gathered the money and handed it over, that does not show that she had an intent to further the

[00:18:42] Speaker 04:
to further the transport of the other illegal aliens.

[00:18:46] Speaker 01:
It's not showing- Why else do you have the money?

[00:18:48] Speaker 01:
I mean, in other words- She's got the money.

[00:18:51] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:18:52] Speaker 01:
You're saying it doesn't show that she intended to do anything vis-a-vis the other individuals.

[00:18:57] Speaker 01:
But if you take that coupled with her multiple phone calls and her attendance at the meetings,

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
Why isn't that sufficient to sustain the verdict?

[00:19:08] Speaker 04:
Because it doesn't show that she is, to use the vernacular, in cahoots with the smugglers, with Ms.

[00:19:16] Speaker 04:
Titano and Pastor Lee and the boat people.

[00:19:21] Speaker 04:
It shows that she is taking some sort of a leadership role within the subgroup.

[00:19:29] Speaker 01:
That's kind of damning, isn't it?

[00:19:32] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor, it's not damning as far as whether she was in a conspiracy with the people who were doing the illegal transporting.

[00:19:42] Speaker 04:
So for example, if let's say a meeting is held, a meeting is called, we're gonna go to meet Ms.

[00:19:52] Speaker 04:
Titanow.

[00:19:53] Speaker 04:
And,

[00:19:56] Speaker 04:
One of the one of the people in the subgroup says I don't have a way to get there You have a car.

[00:20:02] Speaker 04:
Can we get a ride with you?

[00:20:04] Speaker 04:
Sure.

[00:20:05] Speaker 04:
Come on.

[00:20:05] Speaker 04:
I'll give you a ride Is that is she now Because she's helped the other people who are paying for passage in some way is she now

[00:20:21] Speaker 04:
Has she now broken through the threshold between the smuggled and the smugglers and now is joining the smugglers just because she gave a ride?

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
She might not be, but what we have here is something more than that, don't we?

[00:20:35] Speaker 01:
There's multiple phone calls that day, right?

[00:20:38] Speaker 04:
But we did not have any transcript.

[00:20:41] Speaker 04:
We don't know what was said in the phone calls.

[00:20:45] Speaker 04:
We don't know whether the phone calls were before or after the meeting.

[00:20:49] Speaker 04:
which is important to know.

[00:20:52] Speaker 04:
So, and this goes, your honors, to the stacking of inferences problem, that an inference, there may be circumstantial evidence that could support the fact, could support the government's position, but you need to show other things in order to,

[00:21:15] Speaker 04:
reach that in order for that inference that the government is suggesting to be reasonable.

[00:21:21] Speaker 04:
So did the government show all these phone calls were before the meeting or most of the phone calls were before the meeting.

[00:21:28] Speaker 04:
So she's trying to set up the meeting.

[00:21:30] Speaker 04:
No, the government did not show that.

[00:21:32] Speaker 04:
Does the government have transcript of anything that was said between them?

[00:21:38] Speaker 04:
No, we don't have that.

[00:21:40] Speaker 04:
So I

[00:21:44] Speaker 04:
My position is that the inference that the government wants to draw is not, in fact, a reasonable inference.

[00:21:57] Speaker 04:
It is just speculation.

[00:21:58] Speaker 00:
You said a moment ago that the video was not the best evidence.

[00:22:02] Speaker 00:
In your view, what is the best evidence?

[00:22:05] Speaker 04:
for the government?

[00:22:06] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:22:06] Speaker 00:
He said the video was not the best evidence.

[00:22:09] Speaker 00:
So what is the best evidence in your view?

[00:22:12] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:22:13] Speaker 04:
I think I said that I don't know that I would agree that it was the best evidence.

[00:22:21] Speaker 04:
I don't think any of the evidence is particularly good.

[00:22:24] Speaker 04:
I really don't know.

[00:22:26] Speaker 04:
I'm happy to go through each of them.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
I was just curious because you said that's not the best evidence.

[00:22:32] Speaker 00:
When one of my colleagues said that's the best evidence, you said you wouldn't agree that that's the best evidence.

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
So the inference to me is that you think there's some better evidence.

[00:22:41] Speaker 00:
And I wanted to know what that was.

[00:22:43] Speaker 04:
I don't think any of the evidence on its own is great evidence.

[00:22:51] Speaker 04:
And what ends up happening is

[00:22:55] Speaker 04:
So you have several pieces of evidence.

[00:22:57] Speaker 04:
You have the video.

[00:22:59] Speaker 04:
You have the meeting video.

[00:23:01] Speaker 04:
You have the boat video.

[00:23:03] Speaker 04:
You have the jacket photo.

[00:23:06] Speaker 04:
You have the phone calls.

[00:23:07] Speaker 01:
Let me just say, I think that that jacket photo is next to worthless in terms of any culpability of your client as far as these charges.

[00:23:18] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:23:19] Speaker 04:
So you have various pieces, but each of them

[00:23:25] Speaker 04:
uh, only supports a reason.

[00:23:27] Speaker 04:
None of them on their own support a reasonable inference.

[00:23:29] Speaker 00:
So then when you try council, we don't look at the evidence on its own.

[00:23:34] Speaker 00:
We look at all of the evidence that was presented to the jury taking that evidence in the light most favorable to the government.

[00:23:41] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:23:41] Speaker 00:
Then we have to determine whether or not there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

[00:23:46] Speaker 00:
Would you agree?

[00:23:46] Speaker 04:
Yes, I agree with that.

[00:23:48] Speaker 03:
What's your best case?

[00:23:49] Speaker 03:
I was asking your friend across the aisle for his best case on behalf of the government.

[00:23:54] Speaker 03:
I'd like your best case for finding that the circumstances here, is there anything comparable you can show us, presidential, that was insufficient evidence to convict your client?

[00:24:09] Speaker 04:
Don't think that there is your honor, because it's so unusual for the government to try to convict someone of conspiracy and aiding and abetting as they did in this case.

[00:24:24] Speaker 04:
You just can't find cases.

[00:24:26] Speaker 04:
The best case are actually the buyer seller drug cases.

[00:24:30] Speaker 04:
So for example, the case that the district court cited

[00:24:39] Speaker 04:
I don't know if I can get to it quickly, but the district court cited one of the buyer seller cases out of the Ninth Circuit.

[00:24:49] Speaker 01:
We've never had a buyer seller drug case that applied in this context, have we?

[00:24:57] Speaker 04:
Well, the buyer seller drug cases are, yes, you actually have had those cases, because you have cases of- I know we have buyer seller drug cases.

[00:25:07] Speaker 01:
We have a lot of those.

[00:25:08] Speaker 01:
But my question, if you'll just wait one minute.

[00:25:10] Speaker 04:
Yeah, I'm so sorry.

[00:25:10] Speaker 01:
I have a bad habit of interrupting.

[00:25:13] Speaker 01:
The question I have is the application of that principle in an immigration conspiracy context.

[00:25:21] Speaker 01:
Do we have anything like that in our circuit or another circuit?

[00:25:25] Speaker 01:
that we would look to as comparable.

[00:25:27] Speaker 04:
I don't think we do have one.

[00:25:31] Speaker 04:
There are principles in the buyer-seller cases that would apply here, and I think do apply, the point being that if buying from a distributor is enough to show that you're conspiring with the distributor to distribute drugs, then every

[00:25:53] Speaker 04:
every drug purchase is now a conspiracy to distribute.

[00:25:56] Speaker 04:
And that becomes the same thing here.

[00:25:58] Speaker 04:
If every time somebody buys a ticket onto a boat to go to Guam, and there are other illegal aliens as well, then in fact, every time

[00:26:14] Speaker 04:
an illegal alien tries to move within the United States and gets somebody else to assist in some way, they're in a conspiracy.

[00:26:25] Speaker 04:
For example, if we follow that rule in the CNMI, if an undocumented alien is living in Coglerville on the south end of the island,

[00:26:37] Speaker 04:
and hears that there's a job, someone wants to hire him up in Tanapag.

[00:26:42] Speaker 04:
But he has no way to get there.

[00:26:43] Speaker 04:
Tanapag's in the north end of the island.

[00:26:45] Speaker 04:
And he gets someone to take him there.

[00:26:48] Speaker 04:
And that other person knows that the person he's transporting is illegal.

[00:26:52] Speaker 04:
And then there we have it.

[00:26:54] Speaker 04:
We have the conspiracy.

[00:26:56] Speaker 04:
You can get him for conspiracy.

[00:26:58] Speaker 04:
It doesn't have to be going across the block.

[00:27:00] Speaker 01:
But the jury had the situation here with Wang, right?

[00:27:05] Speaker 01:
Who is an individual who was

[00:27:07] Speaker 04:
with Yang's wife.

[00:27:14] Speaker 01:
I'm just saying that we're somewhere between those because she of course in effect had a ticket to come to Guam and the jury heard the evidence vis-a-vis her and they didn't find her liable or guilty of any of these other charges so she was acquitted.

[00:27:36] Speaker 01:
but the other two were convicted.

[00:27:38] Speaker 01:
So there is some evidence here that the jury was listening to the different cases, the different circumstances, right?

[00:27:48] Speaker 04:
Yes, I would agree with that.

[00:27:49] Speaker 04:
And the jury did not have evidence of videos on Wang's phone or of, or there had been phone calls between

[00:28:02] Speaker 04:
And also it had the evidence that her husband, in fact, had paid for her.

[00:28:06] Speaker 04:
So one can understand the jury's verdict in that way.

[00:28:10] Speaker 03:
The government's council cited Ping Ping case, the Ping Ping case.

[00:28:17] Speaker 03:
Are you familiar with that?

[00:28:19] Speaker 04:
I am familiar with the Ping Ping case.

[00:28:21] Speaker 03:
And then can you tell me why we should distinguish that from this?

[00:28:24] Speaker 04:
No, I can't offhand, Your Honor, say why you should.

[00:28:30] Speaker 04:
And the argument that the government was making, I do not believe was made in the briefs.

[00:28:35] Speaker 04:
I didn't have a chance to respond to that either.

[00:28:38] Speaker 04:
I would have to think that out.

[00:28:40] Speaker 04:
And if the government is going to submit something, I would also ask the court permission to submit something in response.

[00:28:48] Speaker 04:
I wanted to address, unless the court has other questions, the boat video briefly.

[00:28:54] Speaker 04:
because it's a good example of unreasonable inferences from something that looks dramatic when you show it.

[00:29:02] Speaker 04:
The boat video was, we know it was modified on June 22nd.

[00:29:06] Speaker 04:
So it was taken no sooner than June 22nd.

[00:29:09] Speaker 04:
The evidence was that Ms.

[00:29:14] Speaker 04:
Hu told someone in the group that she needed to buy a boat no earlier than June 28th.

[00:29:22] Speaker 04:
So the other evidence does not support a reasonable inference that the boat video has anything to do with trying to help Ms.

[00:29:34] Speaker 04:
Hu or others in the conspiracy by the boat.

[00:29:38] Speaker 04:
And that's an example of why we need to avoid conjecture and look at each of these pieces of evidence and see, is there any point where my client is looking to help

[00:29:52] Speaker 04:
and there's none in the evidence.

[00:29:57] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:29:58] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:30:12] Speaker 02:
This was a team effort.

[00:30:13] Speaker 02:
And when you join a team, the individual purpose becomes the common purpose.

[00:30:21] Speaker 02:
I want to return to a point that your honor made about the split verdict.

[00:30:27] Speaker 02:
I think that establishes that this was a very conscientious jury that weighed the evidence and followed the instructions as they were given.

[00:30:34] Speaker 02:
And their decision should be entitled to deference.

[00:30:39] Speaker 02:
When the court reviewed the evidence, the first time I read the order, it read as if someone, a juror was weighing everything and

[00:30:50] Speaker 02:
with the mind of a lawyer poking holes in various propositions and after several weeks deciding that in the court's opinion, there was reasonable doubt.

[00:31:00] Speaker 02:
That of course is not the standard that we're looking at.

[00:31:03] Speaker 02:
The standard that we're looking at is could any rational juror have found sufficient evidence?

[00:31:10] Speaker 02:
In this case, the defense counsel talks about stacking of inferences

[00:31:15] Speaker 02:
I would contend that it wasn't a stacking of inferences, it was a stacking of evidence.

[00:31:20] Speaker 02:
Each of these pieces of evidence alone, perhaps not, but when combined together, they were sufficient to sustain the verdict.

[00:31:27] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:31:27] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much, Mr. Omali, Mr. Miller.

[00:31:30] Speaker 03:
We appreciate the oral argument presentations here today.

[00:31:34] Speaker 03:
The case of United States of America versus Wayne is now submitted.