[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
is United States versus Smith.

[00:00:02] Speaker 02:
It is Docket 24-7081.

[00:00:03] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:00:06] Speaker 02:
Cunningham, we are ready for your argument when you're ready to give it to us.

[00:00:13] Speaker 02:
If you can hear me, maybe you can.

[00:00:15] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:16] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:00:17] Speaker 00:
Edie Cunningham, on behalf of Appellant Smith, I'd like to try to reserve three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:25] Speaker 00:
The circumstances here strongly supported duress.

[00:00:29] Speaker 00:
The co-defendant was a longtime abuser of children and a convicted felon for strangling his ex-wife.

[00:00:37] Speaker 00:
Within weeks of meeting Smith,

[00:00:39] Speaker 00:
He charmed his way into her life and moved in with her.

[00:00:43] Speaker 00:
And he brought guns and knives into her home and threatened grave harm to her and her children if she did not do what he asked.

[00:00:52] Speaker 01:
Well, she had several opportunities to alert the authorities that there was a problem there, and she did not do it at all, ever.

[00:01:04] Speaker 01:
Your Honor.

[00:01:05] Speaker 01:
And what she did was up for it.

[00:01:10] Speaker 01:
whether she loved this guy or not, she had the opportunity to alert the authorities that there were bad things going on.

[00:01:20] Speaker 01:
Now, explain why she didn't tell anybody about it.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I'd like to discuss the issues that we've raised in the brief.

[00:01:30] Speaker 00:
That is an issue for the jury.

[00:01:31] Speaker 01:
I'd like you to answer my question first.

[00:01:34] Speaker 00:
Well, she didn't because the co-defendant brought several firearms into their home, a knife called the heart ripper.

[00:01:41] Speaker 00:
He threatened to kill her and her kids if she didn't do it.

[00:01:45] Speaker 00:
He threatened to break her little girl's fingers.

[00:01:48] Speaker 00:
He had locks on the tops of the bedroom doors to control her movements.

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
So there were a lot of reasons why she was under an imminent threat.

[00:01:59] Speaker 00:
And all of the errors in this case struck right at the heart of her defense.

[00:02:04] Speaker 00:
They require reversal either alone or in combination.

[00:02:08] Speaker 00:
All were part of the government's improper appeal to the jury to take our word for it.

[00:02:14] Speaker 00:
She was a willing participant.

[00:02:17] Speaker 00:
I'll first start with the hearsay issue unless the court would prefer me to start with another issue.

[00:02:23] Speaker 00:
The out of court statement at issue here was the Caliqua police officer statement in the police report that Smith called the police to her home in December of 21.

[00:02:34] Speaker 00:
to report a stolen vehicle.

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
That officer did not testify at trial.

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
The witness who testified about it, Agent Kurt, only knew about it because she read about it in a police report.

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
A police report is beyond dispute, hearsay, under the rules of evidence.

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
And the government weaponized the truth of this reported, purported statement to the police in its closing argument, when it argued if Smith was outraged enough to call the police about a stolen vehicle, she could have called the police about her daughters.

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
Um, it was prejudicial.

[00:03:16] Speaker 00:
It was used in rebuttal closing argument, which is especially prejudicial.

[00:03:21] Speaker 00:
And it went straight to her duress defense.

[00:03:25] Speaker 00:
the government never offered any reasonable explanation as to why this was not hearsay, either at trial or on appeal.

[00:03:34] Speaker 00:
If there are no questions on that, I will move on to the opinion testimony.

[00:03:41] Speaker 00:
We maintain that this error was preserved.

[00:03:45] Speaker 00:
The defendant made a preliminary objection before Agent Jackson

[00:03:53] Speaker 00:
testified about the videos that the videos should speak for themselves and there shouldn't be inappropriate comments about them.

[00:04:01] Speaker 00:
The district court ruled the witness can testify or comment on evidence that is admitted to the jury.

[00:04:09] Speaker 00:
So there wasn't a need to take exception to this ruling.

[00:04:12] Speaker 00:
And then again, when the prosecutor first questioned agent Jackson about Smith's demeanor on the videos,

[00:04:22] Speaker 00:
In addition to this preliminary objection, the defense counsel said this is foundation and speculation, which further alerted the court to the problem, but it was overruled.

[00:04:36] Speaker 00:
And as this court has said recently in the DA case,

[00:04:40] Speaker 00:
Council need not use magic words or expressly invoke a rule in order to preserve an issue for appeal.

[00:04:48] Speaker 00:
But in any event, this was plain error.

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
This testimony about Smith's demeanor in the videos was not helpful to the jury.

[00:04:59] Speaker 00:
As noted, the videos were ultimately admitted through Anthony Meener.

[00:05:04] Speaker 00:
They were very short videos, the longest of which was three or four minutes long.

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
There was absolutely no reason why the agent's opinion about my client's demeanor in the videos was helpful to the jury.

[00:05:21] Speaker 00:
The plain language of the rule, rule 701, makes clear that this was not appropriate testimony.

[00:05:28] Speaker 00:
The advisory committee notes to rule 701 makes clear that when opinion testimony amounts to little more than choosing upsides, it is in violation of the rule.

[00:05:41] Speaker 00:
This court in Brooks and Goodman have made it abundantly clear that when a witness is in no better position than the jury,

[00:05:52] Speaker 00:
to render an opinion than it is not helpful under 701.

[00:05:57] Speaker 00:
And it is hard to think of a better example, of a better example of opinion testimony that violates rule 701b.

[00:06:07] Speaker 00:
And it was especially bad because it was a form of overview evidence.

[00:06:13] Speaker 00:
Overview evidence typically happens in conspiracy cases, but here we had Agent Jackson who was testifying about the videos before they were admitted into evidence.

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
They were admitted into evidence a couple of witnesses later through Anthony Meader.

[00:06:28] Speaker 00:
And what essentially she did and then Agent Kurt did in her redirect before the videos were published to the jury was implant the government's theory of the case into the jury's mind before they even had a chance to view the videos.

[00:06:46] Speaker 00:
They were spoon feeding the prosecutor's theory to the jury and in essence,

[00:06:52] Speaker 00:
acting as deputy prosecutors to argue the case when the only proper place to make arguments like that is in closing argument.

[00:07:02] Speaker 00:
And it could have had and likely did have a very real impact on my client's

[00:07:08] Speaker 00:
defense because if the juries hadn't been poisoned in that way by this improper opinion, they may well have looked at the videos and said, well, she's, you know, Smith is doing everything she can to make sure that this guy is going to be satisfied with what she's doing so that her kid's fingers aren't broken or they're not all killed.

[00:07:31] Speaker 00:
But the prosecutor's improper opinion allowed, um,

[00:07:37] Speaker 00:
basically implanted the prosecutor's theory into the jury's mind.

[00:07:41] Speaker 04:
And frankly- What was the jury instructed about duress and what you were required to show?

[00:07:50] Speaker 00:
They were given the standard duress instruction that the defendant was under an unlawful and present, imminent and impending threat.

[00:07:58] Speaker 00:
which would induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury.

[00:08:03] Speaker 00:
And she had no reasonable legal alternative to violating the law and needed to do it to avoid the threatened harm.

[00:08:12] Speaker 04:
And these counts, basically the various counts which she was convicted, there were nine counts that occurred over a period of four days, right?

[00:08:27] Speaker 04:
Some of the some of the videos were on Sunday, November 21st, and some of them I believe were on Wednesday, November 24th.

[00:08:36] Speaker 04:
Thanksgiving was that 2021.

[00:08:39] Speaker 04:
I think Thanksgiving was that Thursday, so there was three days, at least three full days basically in between the two sets of videos.

[00:08:50] Speaker 04:
And yet her claim was that she was under this imminent threat.

[00:08:56] Speaker 04:
Apparently this whole

[00:08:57] Speaker 04:
entire time, right?

[00:08:59] Speaker 04:
I mean, she's got three days in there if she was really under this imminent threat to do these horrible, horrible things with her children on Sunday.

[00:09:08] Speaker 04:
And we've got video of that so the jury could observe whether they thought she was under threat, imminent threat.

[00:09:19] Speaker 04:
What about Monday and the rest of Sunday and Monday and Tuesday?

[00:09:23] Speaker 04:
Wednesday.

[00:09:24] Speaker 00:
Well, your honor, if somebody has knives and guns in the home and they're pointing them at you and they're saying, look, if you don't do that evidence was there, what evidence was there that this was happening that entire period?

[00:09:40] Speaker 04:
No, no opportunity, no opportunity to do anything about it legally, to go to law enforcement.

[00:09:48] Speaker 04:
What evidence was there

[00:09:50] Speaker 04:
about that period.

[00:09:52] Speaker 04:
I'm not saying there wasn't evidence that she said, oh, I was under duress, but all we have is some very generalized statements, not about when or how long or how long, if she was held at, was she held at knife point?

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
Was she held at gun point?

[00:10:11] Speaker 04:
Was she not allowed to leave the house?

[00:10:14] Speaker 04:
Were the children not allowed to leave?

[00:10:16] Speaker 04:
We don't know any of that.

[00:10:17] Speaker 04:
We don't know the immediacy of it, the length of it,

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
We don't know if she, we don't know whether she had no time in that whole time period or even after to go to Los Angeles.

[00:10:32] Speaker 04:
The two months after she's taken to daycare.

[00:10:36] Speaker 04:
What evidence of duress, what evidence of a continuing imminent duress do we have even for the three day period that she, this, this occurred on?

[00:10:48] Speaker 00:
Well, your honor, for one thing,

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
The district court found that there was sufficient evidence of duress and gave the jury the instructions.

[00:10:55] Speaker 04:
I understand that, but when we're being asked to do, we're going to have to do a prejudice analysis here, if you're correct, that there were errors.

[00:11:04] Speaker 04:
Well, you're right.

[00:11:05] Speaker 04:
Or potentially more than one error.

[00:11:06] Speaker 04:
And I'm just saying the fact that there's an instruction doesn't, it's got to be enough for you.

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
Well, your honor, I would just say that if you're living with an abusive monster, like my client was, who has guns and knives and a heartripper knife in the home, who has strangled his ex-wife and basically has lied.

[00:11:27] Speaker 04:
She didn't know that.

[00:11:28] Speaker 04:
And she apparently didn't know that.

[00:11:30] Speaker 04:
She believed that he had, she believed he was previously a law enforcement officer.

[00:11:36] Speaker 04:
She apparently believed some things that he told her.

[00:11:39] Speaker 04:
At the time, she was not aware of these things.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
Well, she was aware he had choked someone and she was aware that he was threatening her with with the guns and the knives and the fact that she thought he was a prior law.

[00:11:51] Speaker 00:
We don't know.

[00:11:51] Speaker 04:
We don't know when he threatened her.

[00:11:53] Speaker 04:
We don't know how long he threatened her.

[00:11:55] Speaker 04:
We don't know if she had an opportunity.

[00:11:57] Speaker 04:
We don't know the details.

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, I would go back to, this is a jury issue and there was certainly enough there for the jury to draw reasonable inferences that she was under an imminent threat.

[00:12:13] Speaker 00:
If you are living in a house with an abusive person who is armed, who is telling you that he was a law enforcement officer and he's buddy buddy with law enforcement.

[00:12:24] Speaker 04:
How long was it imminent?

[00:12:25] Speaker 04:
How long was it imminent?

[00:12:27] Speaker 00:
The entire time he was living with her, Your Honor, there were- This occurred in November.

[00:12:33] Speaker 04:
The two days that we have videos that the charges are based on occurred in November, and then there's nothing else.

[00:12:42] Speaker 04:
And then he's arrested in January.

[00:12:44] Speaker 04:
Do we have any evidence of what kind of threat she was under imminently that entire time?

[00:12:50] Speaker 04:
Is that time period relevant in terms of her not seeking any help, not going to law enforcement,

[00:12:57] Speaker 04:
not trying to protect her children.

[00:12:59] Speaker 04:
What evidence is there?

[00:13:03] Speaker 00:
Well, it's only relevant in the sense that the government used her purported interaction with law enforcement in December, but really the, you know, the, the abuse that was proven was in November.

[00:13:17] Speaker 00:
So that would be the relevant time period as far as, um, whether she was under a threat, but, but I, she was also under a threat not to turn him in.

[00:13:28] Speaker 00:
the circumstances strongly suggest to me that she was under an imminent threat that entire time until he was out of the house.

[00:13:36] Speaker 00:
And even then, when she spoke to him on the phone, when he was in jail, he told her, I'm going to get out at arraignment.

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
So I'll be out.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
So she was still under duress.

[00:13:48] Speaker 04:
He also, he also told her to, um, get rid of, uh,

[00:13:53] Speaker 04:
the videos and she did on her own phone.

[00:13:56] Speaker 04:
She deleted those the night before she was arrested.

[00:14:01] Speaker 00:
I think an important point to keep in mind is that, and if you look back at the timing, which I think we've both briefed in our statement of facts, is that she did not wipe her phone until after she talked, she requested the interview with Wagner and then Kurt.

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
And they did not seem at all concerned about the threat that she had been under and the duress that she had been under.

[00:14:30] Speaker 00:
And it was only after that.

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
She wanted to cooperate, but the officers did not care about the threats that she was under.

[00:14:40] Speaker 02:
And so it was only after that that she deleted the phone.

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
You're speaking as though duress is a fact.

[00:14:48] Speaker 02:
It's established.

[00:14:49] Speaker 02:
That's something the jury rejected.

[00:14:51] Speaker 02:
She had a shot and they said, we've looked at all of the evidence, we've heard everything that you wanted to provide to us by argument or otherwise, and no sale.

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
Well, Your Honor, respectfully, they rejected it in the face of all of these improper tactics that the government used, the improper hearsay, the improper opinion, the improper arguments.

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
So we don't know what they would have done in the absence of those improprieties.

[00:15:19] Speaker 00:
And I see my time is

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
is over.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:15:22] Speaker 02:
Okay, thank you, Council.

[00:15:25] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:15:25] Speaker 02:
Williams.

[00:15:29] Speaker 03:
Morning, Your Honors.

[00:15:31] Speaker 03:
Lisa Williams, representing the United States of America.

[00:15:35] Speaker 03:
I am happy to address any of the specific evidentiary issues or the standard of review.

[00:15:41] Speaker 03:
It's kind of, some issues we believe are plain error.

[00:15:44] Speaker 03:
Well, actually the government's position is that it all should be plain error view, but perhaps some are abusive discretion.

[00:15:50] Speaker 03:
But under either standard of review that this court applies, part of the analysis will either be a harmless error analysis, which the government bears the burden of, or an effect on substantial rights, which the defendant would bear the burden on.

[00:16:04] Speaker 03:
But in any event, this court is going to have to step back and say, even if there was error, did it impact, did it affect the outcome of the verdict in this case?

[00:16:16] Speaker 03:
And the government's position is it absolutely did not.

[00:16:19] Speaker 04:
Before you get there, let's do talk about some of these errors because some of them are problematic for me, at least.

[00:16:30] Speaker 04:
I think one that really stands out is the government's prosecutor's closing argument where he, she, I'm not sure who the prosecutor was below, says,

[00:16:43] Speaker 04:
to the jury, methamphetamine users binge and binge, and then they crash.

[00:16:47] Speaker 04:
And when they crash, they sleep.

[00:16:48] Speaker 04:
And sometimes they sleep for days.

[00:16:51] Speaker 04:
And the prosecutor is saying these things so that he can basically minimize the evidence of duress.

[00:17:01] Speaker 04:
Essentially, if he was a meth user,

[00:17:07] Speaker 04:
then why couldn't she have had days and days where she would not have been under imminent threat because he was crashed out and so she could have done something.

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
She could have went somewhere.

[00:17:19] Speaker 04:
And then you had even more than that.

[00:17:23] Speaker 04:
But let me stop with that right there.

[00:17:25] Speaker 04:
There were no facts in the record whatsoever, none, to support that he

[00:17:32] Speaker 04:
you know, would binge and binge and then crash and then sleep for days.

[00:17:36] Speaker 04:
None.

[00:17:37] Speaker 04:
There apparently were facts that he was a meth user.

[00:17:40] Speaker 04:
So how is that a proper statement by the prosecutor?

[00:17:44] Speaker 03:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:17:44] Speaker 03:
The government's argument is that it's a reasonable inference that it could draw.

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
There is no evidence about the effect.

[00:17:51] Speaker 04:
There is none.

[00:17:52] Speaker 04:
And is that really a reasonable inference that for days and days he would binge?

[00:17:57] Speaker 04:
He's a meth user.

[00:17:58] Speaker 04:
That's all we know.

[00:17:58] Speaker 04:
It's not a reasonable inference.

[00:18:01] Speaker 04:
And then more than that, the prosecutor instructs the jury, what did Smith do to alert authorities or get help and call for distress during the days that you can think about Mr. Bias's methamphetamine usage and you can consider whether he was crashed for hours, if not days at a time.

[00:18:21] Speaker 04:
And she did nothing because this is the life she wanted to embrace.

[00:18:26] Speaker 04:
This was in the rebuttal closing argument.

[00:18:29] Speaker 04:
We took facts that were not even slightly before the jury.

[00:18:32] Speaker 04:
And regardless of whether it needed to or not, if the evidence of duress wasn't that great, just shoved them down the jury's throat by saying, you can consider these facts, I'm telling you, even though they're not in the record.

[00:18:49] Speaker 04:
I realize the judge is telling you that my statements aren't evidence, but I'm telling you, you can consider all the crashes

[00:18:58] Speaker 04:
the binges, and why didn't she do something during that?

[00:19:01] Speaker 04:
That's pretty egregious.

[00:19:03] Speaker 04:
That's pretty egregious.

[00:19:05] Speaker 04:
And I'd like you to address why, if the only issue is duress, because that's the only issue at this point.

[00:19:14] Speaker 04:
We've got video.

[00:19:15] Speaker 04:
Nobody's contesting that.

[00:19:18] Speaker 04:
Why, with the government shoving it down their throats like that?

[00:19:22] Speaker 04:
Was that not a problem?

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
Well, because it's cumulative, Your Honor.

[00:19:26] Speaker 04:
That would be the response I would give you in looking at... There's nothing cumulative about evidence that's not in the record.

[00:19:33] Speaker 04:
Nothing cumulative about telling them to speculate

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
about something that we don't even know happened.

[00:19:42] Speaker 03:
The evidence speaks to, as your honor noted, the credibility of the duress defense and whether or not she had opportunities.

[00:19:49] Speaker 03:
And there is significant other evidence in the record that speaks to the credibility of

[00:19:55] Speaker 03:
the duress defense.

[00:19:56] Speaker 03:
So the government believes it's cumulative in that sense.

[00:20:00] Speaker 03:
Yes, there's no other evidence in the record about methamphetamine users.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
But for the argument and the purpose underlying that evidence, or the argument that that evidence underlines, there's a lot of evidence that also speaks to that argument.

[00:20:16] Speaker 03:
So when this court gets to the third prong of plain error, let's assume it was an error in its plain.

[00:20:21] Speaker 03:
So when, because we do all agree that the closing remarks are operating under plain error review because there was no objection made.

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
So let's assume it was an error and it was plain.

[00:20:31] Speaker 03:
This court still has to evaluate whether or not there's a substantial likelihood, but for that remark, there'd be a different verdict.

[00:20:38] Speaker 03:
And again, as this court noted during counsel's prior argument a few minutes ago, could have talked to a daycare worker, could have talked to friends or family.

[00:20:47] Speaker 03:
I mean, she could have reached out at any other time.

[00:20:51] Speaker 03:
to other people.

[00:20:52] Speaker 03:
So that's where I think the argument really hits the roadblock.

[00:20:57] Speaker 03:
And again, I'm not conceding.

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
I'm not conceding it's plain error.

[00:21:02] Speaker 03:
But if the court finds that it is.

[00:21:07] Speaker 04:
Can you cite any case where a prosecutor literally made up facts about the defendant and said he was binging for days and crashed and that this, not about the defendant, but about the

[00:21:19] Speaker 04:
Mr. Smith and said that this defendant would have had time during those days when that defendant was crashed and that the jury can consider that.

[00:21:27] Speaker 04:
So, I mean, I take it that the government, even though they had presented that argument, which is what about all this other time that she could have done something?

[00:21:36] Speaker 04:
What about the daycare?

[00:21:37] Speaker 04:
What about the, you know, why was this imminent, essentially?

[00:21:41] Speaker 04:
They must've been worried about it because they chose in rebuttal to really hit hard on this non-existent evidence.

[00:21:49] Speaker 03:
I would push back that the government was worried about it, Your Honor, and I think that this court sometimes, especially during rebuttal, it's not worrisome, it's frustration.

[00:21:58] Speaker 03:
It may have been, but it was just blank.

[00:22:03] Speaker 03:
So it's not that the government's worried that they're going to lose their case, it's more of a frustration that this woman is a pedophile who

[00:22:11] Speaker 03:
who assault, sexually abused her two and three year old daughter.

[00:22:15] Speaker 03:
I understand all of that.

[00:22:16] Speaker 03:
She wants the jury to believe that she's under distress.

[00:22:19] Speaker 04:
And there's plenty of ways to challenge that is my point.

[00:22:23] Speaker 04:
And it was done.

[00:22:24] Speaker 04:
They challenged it properly.

[00:22:25] Speaker 04:
I'm just saying this came in and this was pretty egregious in terms of making up facts.

[00:22:30] Speaker 04:
The other thing I want to ask you about is the admission of the lay opinion testimony from both the two agents.

[00:22:39] Speaker 04:
who weren't there during her video interview, but both were allowed to testify, I believe, before the video even came in, is that right, about her demeanor on the video the jury hadn't seen yet, right?

[00:22:54] Speaker 03:
Well, it was, and I'm sorry, my understanding is it's her demeanor on the video during the sexual abuse of her daughters.

[00:23:02] Speaker 03:
Well, right.

[00:23:03] Speaker 03:
It's not it's not an interview.

[00:23:05] Speaker 03:
It's not her interview.

[00:23:07] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:23:07] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:23:08] Speaker 04:
But they hadn't had they been had they seen that video yet?

[00:23:11] Speaker 04:
The jury had not know your honor.

[00:23:14] Speaker 04:
So the I'm sorry, I did get that mixed up.

[00:23:16] Speaker 04:
They are allowed to testify about her demeanor on a video that hadn't been admitted yet.

[00:23:24] Speaker 04:
And which they weren't present at and which the jury would see for themselves and make their own judgment.

[00:23:30] Speaker 04:
And they did see it.

[00:23:32] Speaker 04:
But what possibly would be the basis for allowing two agents to testify about this video, which hadn't even been admitted and tell the jury what went to the heart of the defendant's duress defense, which is, I don't think she appeared to be under duress in this video, that by the way, you haven't seen yet.

[00:23:54] Speaker 04:
And I wasn't there, but I'm going to tell you what I think as an agent,

[00:23:59] Speaker 04:
What could possibly be appropriate about that?

[00:24:04] Speaker 03:
Well, I think that 701 does clearly allow that type of lay opinion testimony.

[00:24:08] Speaker 03:
And in this case, what's significant?

[00:24:09] Speaker 04:
Well, what does 701 require?

[00:24:12] Speaker 03:
A lay opinion based on the witness's personal observations that is helpful to the trier of fact and not expert testimony.

[00:24:24] Speaker 04:
So what was personally observed about this?

[00:24:27] Speaker 04:
They watched the video just like anybody else.

[00:24:30] Speaker 04:
They did, Your Honor.

[00:24:31] Speaker 03:
But the jury hadn't seen it yet.

[00:24:33] Speaker 03:
And the difference is that they have had prior personal in-person interactions.

[00:24:38] Speaker 04:
They didn't testify to that, did they?

[00:24:40] Speaker 04:
They both made it very clear they were testifying based on what they observed on the video.

[00:24:45] Speaker 04:
Well, I read that in the defendant's reply and I pushed back.

[00:24:48] Speaker 04:
I looked at their testimony and they did very specifically and neither one of them connected what they saw in the video, which the jury hadn't seen yet.

[00:24:56] Speaker 04:
Let's not forget that to their work with the witness or interviews with the witness.

[00:25:02] Speaker 04:
They talked about what they saw on the video and how they perceived whether she was under duress or not.

[00:25:09] Speaker 04:
And the jury hadn't seen the video.

[00:25:11] Speaker 04:
So that's what they did.

[00:25:12] Speaker 04:
And I would assume that was let's assume that was there also.

[00:25:16] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:25:17] Speaker 03:
Then again, assuming that's error, it still does.

[00:25:22] Speaker 03:
And if it's plain error, it's the defendant's burden.

[00:25:24] Speaker 03:
If it's abuse of discretion, then it's the government's burden.

[00:25:28] Speaker 04:
Well, we did have an objection there to inappropriate comments by the witness commentary on the photos and the videos.

[00:25:34] Speaker 04:
And the counsel said those videos speak for themselves.

[00:25:37] Speaker 04:
And by the way, the videos hadn't even been admitted yet.

[00:25:40] Speaker 04:
So the jury was being told what to think about them before they were admitted.

[00:25:46] Speaker 03:
I yes, I agree.

[00:25:50] Speaker 03:
I don't think that that was sufficient to preserve a continuing objection to the issue because there was an objection or we can even assume that's fine.

[00:25:58] Speaker 04:
Let's assume let's assume it was playing there.

[00:26:01] Speaker 03:
So so and I'm happy to argue harmless there too, because I think the result is the same.

[00:26:08] Speaker 03:
What the evidence is, what the improperly amended evidence is, is a few sentences of testimony where these officers are saying, she doesn't seem under duress to me, right?

[00:26:19] Speaker 03:
At the end of the day, that's what they're saying.

[00:26:21] Speaker 03:
She doesn't seem under duress.

[00:26:22] Speaker 03:
She seems like she's a willing participant in the sexual abuse.

[00:26:26] Speaker 03:
Because the jury gets to then watch the videos themselves, if the jury wasn't allowed to later see the videos, I think that that would have a more concerning effect because they can't judge the videos themselves.

[00:26:38] Speaker 03:
But the jury did get to watch the videos.

[00:26:40] Speaker 04:
They've already been told how to view them.

[00:26:41] Speaker 03:
before they had to come.

[00:26:44] Speaker 03:
They're also told in the jury instructions that they're the ultimate deciders of credibility, Your Honor, and we presume that the jury follows the jury instructions.

[00:26:53] Speaker 03:
So they're told that this is their decision to make, and because of that, they get to see the videos themselves and they can make their own independent evaluation.

[00:27:03] Speaker 03:
The agent's opinion testimony

[00:27:06] Speaker 04:
They should have just disregarded it because they could make their own and they should not assume that these agents knew better than them, probably.

[00:27:14] Speaker 03:
Well, and I don't think there's a single instruction that says the agents know better than them.

[00:27:20] Speaker 03:
Again, there's those two instructions that really say, you're the ones that are, this is your job.

[00:27:24] Speaker 03:
This is what you're supposed to do.

[00:27:26] Speaker 03:
And you're the ultimate deciders of credibility.

[00:27:29] Speaker 03:
And this whole trial is about that, Your Honor.

[00:27:32] Speaker 03:
This is a whole trial about, is the defendant's duress claim credible?

[00:27:37] Speaker 03:
And the jury's told, that's your job.

[00:27:41] Speaker 04:
Well, that's what 701 is about is the whole purpose of 701 is to help to understand, you know, testimony.

[00:27:50] Speaker 04:
I mean, to say it's the idea is, you know, is this person any better suited than the jury to make these determinations?

[00:27:59] Speaker 04:
And here, how are they better suited than the jury to make these determinations about a video that obviously they weren't present for?

[00:28:10] Speaker 04:
and the jury hasn't even seen, how could they possibly be better suited?

[00:28:14] Speaker 04:
And the whole idea is to prevent opinions that tell the jury what to do, essentially, or what decision to reach.

[00:28:23] Speaker 04:
And this is what the only decision they had to reach was whether there was duress here.

[00:28:28] Speaker 04:
And these two agents told them she was not under duress.

[00:28:32] Speaker 04:
And you will see that when you see the video.

[00:28:34] Speaker 03:
Well, they said in my opinion, right?

[00:28:37] Speaker 03:
She's not under arrest, which is a fine line to slice.

[00:28:41] Speaker 03:
But I do think it's worth noting that it was their opinion.

[00:28:45] Speaker 03:
But I would refer the court back to the Chiquito case, which to me is even more egregious than what happened in this case.

[00:28:54] Speaker 04:
It's totally different because there, the agent was there during the video, during the interview.

[00:28:59] Speaker 04:
Well, the agent conducted the video.

[00:29:01] Speaker 04:
That's a big difference to be there.

[00:29:03] Speaker 04:
Yeah, and to be present during the interview and be talking about what you observed, there's a big difference there.

[00:29:12] Speaker 03:
I agree there's a difference around her, but at the same time, the agent testified she wasn't lying, which I also think is a big difference than what we have in this case.

[00:29:21] Speaker 03:
To say a witness isn't lying, I mean, ding, ding, ding, red bell should go off to everybody in the courtroom.

[00:29:26] Speaker 03:
this witness is talking about the credibility of another witness and that's a huge that that's what we don't do but but it was fine in chiquito and again i agree that there is no direct loop in the testimony where the agents are basing this opinion on their prior in-person interactions but that doesn't mean that they didn't have that prior and

[00:29:46] Speaker 03:
in-person interaction to base their opinion on.

[00:29:50] Speaker 03:
And the jury did know that they did have that prior in-person interaction because they talked about the interviews they conducted with the defendant personally.

[00:30:00] Speaker 03:
And so it's not quite to the Chiquito facts, but it's also maybe halfway there.

[00:30:08] Speaker 03:
There is some sort of in-person relationship that the agents can base some of their opinion on instead of just reading off of a cold interview video.

[00:30:19] Speaker 03:
But in this case, I am running out of time.

[00:30:23] Speaker 03:
Again, the government would come back to, even if there are errors, plain or abusive discretion that did not impact the jury's verdict.

[00:30:32] Speaker 03:
The evidence was overwhelming.

[00:30:34] Speaker 03:
And the lack of evidence regarding her duress is just blatantly obvious on this record.

[00:30:40] Speaker 03:
And so even if these didn't exist, the jury still would have convicted.

[00:30:44] Speaker 03:
And therefore, a reversal is not required.

[00:30:48] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:30:50] Speaker 02:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:30:53] Speaker 00:
Your honors, may I respond and very briefly in a minute or less?

[00:30:59] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:31:00] Speaker 02:
Had you run out of any time for rebuttal?

[00:31:03] Speaker 00:
Yes, I had.

[00:31:04] Speaker 00:
I intended to reserve some, but I OK, take two minutes.

[00:31:08] Speaker 00:
Thank you, your honors.

[00:31:10] Speaker 00:
I believe the prosecutor's tactics here, the links they went to to try to

[00:31:18] Speaker 00:
implant their theory into the jury's mind that she wasn't under duress shows that they were in fact worried.

[00:31:25] Speaker 00:
And all of the circumstances here suggested duress.

[00:31:28] Speaker 00:
My client had never done anything like this before.

[00:31:32] Speaker 00:
This was not remotely anything she was into.

[00:31:35] Speaker 00:
The co-defendant had been doing this for a long time.

[00:31:38] Speaker 00:
The circumstances suggest that he basically ensnared her, moved into her house,

[00:31:45] Speaker 00:
and began threatening her to do what she wanted.

[00:31:49] Speaker 00:
So I would ask the court to keep that in mind.

[00:31:53] Speaker 00:
She was not predisposed to do this.

[00:31:55] Speaker 00:
She is not a pedophile.

[00:31:56] Speaker 00:
She was made to do this.

[00:31:58] Speaker 00:
And the jury should have the opportunity or another jury should have the opportunity to view this case without the improper tactics employed by the prosecution.

[00:32:10] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:32:11] Speaker 02:
Thank you both, counsel, for your helpful arguments.

[00:32:14] Speaker 02:
The case is submitted and counsel are excused.