[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
We'll turn to 25-4006, U.S.

[00:00:04] Speaker 03:
versus Lansing.

[00:00:07] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
Stengel, whenever you're ready.

[00:00:10] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Jessica Stengel appearing on behalf of Randy Lansing.

[00:00:15] Speaker 00:
District courts are frontline defenders of the integrity and dignity of the criminal justice system.

[00:00:22] Speaker 00:
Dignity disappears when perjury is allowed to taint proceedings.

[00:00:28] Speaker 00:
We know this from the Supreme Court.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
Massa Rosh versus United States.

[00:00:33] Speaker 00:
Integrity absolutely disappears when the end result takes priority, excuse me, over the processes by which we reach that result.

[00:00:45] Speaker 00:
The integrity of the criminal justice system requires that the ends never justify the means.

[00:00:51] Speaker 00:
And that's what happened in this case.

[00:00:53] Speaker 00:
Mr. Lansing, it was a rush to conviction, and by rush,

[00:00:58] Speaker 00:
We need to look at the numerous instances of delay caused by his ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial level.

[00:01:06] Speaker 00:
And the district court sanctioned trial counsel acting as a mere friend of the court rather than an active advocate, which is what is required by Chronic and the Sixth Amendment.

[00:01:22] Speaker 00:
Mr. Lansing finally received competent counsel after he was convicted at trial.

[00:01:28] Speaker 00:
Through the diligent work of competent counsel, newly discovered evidence was presented to the district court.

[00:01:34] Speaker 00:
The district court was having absolutely none of it.

[00:01:38] Speaker 00:
And Mr. Lansing is asking this court to reverse the district court's refusal to even consider his motion for a new trial.

[00:01:46] Speaker 00:
To allow the district court's decision to stand, as it is, would be to transform Rule 33 from a substantive due process based procedure

[00:01:56] Speaker 00:
into simply a matter of incanting magic words.

[00:01:59] Speaker 00:
And I think this court would be in a tough, difficult position where a sanction would happen below, given how it decided and what it considered in United States versus Meacham, which was a 2009 case, where after being convicted at trial, the defendant decided this was super bad.

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
I'm going to get a whole bunch of people to say that they lied at trial.

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
the district court kind of had nothing but held a multi-day evidentiary hearing.

[00:02:28] Speaker 00:
And after that hearing, the district court, listening to all of the evidence, all of the testimony, concluded that, in fact, the evidence was newly discovered.

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
The failure to learn of the evidence was not due to a lack of diligence.

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
The evidence was not merely impeaching.

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
And the evidence that this defendant presented

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
was in fact material to the principal issues involved and in Meacham it was a drug distribution case.

[00:02:57] Speaker 03:
Well let's look at those elements here.

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

[00:03:00] Speaker 03:
One is whether it's newly discovered because what she recanted were things that the defendant would have personal knowledge of.

[00:03:12] Speaker 03:
What she had been doing with him that day and what she had done in his presence.

[00:03:17] Speaker 03:
And I'll go to one other element before you need to respond.

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
And the second issue is what difference these recantations made because they didn't go, she didn't recant the substantive allegations about what the defendant did in the murder.

[00:03:41] Speaker 03:
These were, she'd been drinking, she had been drinking before.

[00:03:47] Speaker 03:
Not matters that

[00:03:49] Speaker 03:
went to her testimony about the defendant's murder of the victim.

[00:03:55] Speaker 03:
So if you'd respond to those, please.

[00:04:00] Speaker 00:
I'm going to work backwards, and if I forget something, please remind me.

[00:04:03] Speaker 00:
So I would say that it absolutely goes to the substance of what happened.

[00:04:09] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:04:09] Speaker 00:
Benally's admissions of perjury absolutely are material as to who did what at the creek.

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
In other words, she might have been at the room where it happened, but she was not honest or forthcoming about what her role in the decedent's death was.

[00:04:29] Speaker 00:
And I think that's evident by her.

[00:04:31] Speaker 03:
But wait, wait, wait.

[00:04:32] Speaker 03:
You're not saying that you get a new trial because you get impeachment evidence, are you?

[00:04:38] Speaker 00:
No, this is not impeachment evidence by a long shot.

[00:04:41] Speaker 00:
This is new.

[00:04:42] Speaker 00:
She, Ms.

[00:04:43] Speaker 00:
Spinelli, perjured herself.

[00:04:44] Speaker 00:
And it's material because it goes to what happened.

[00:04:47] Speaker 00:
And a three-page affidavit should have been enough for the district court to say, time out, let's put her on the stand to understand the substance and extent of her lies.

[00:05:01] Speaker 00:
And the effect it had on trial is substantive.

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
If we look at the government's closing arguments, both in its initial closing argument and in its rebuttal, the prosecutor repeatedly referred the jury to Ms.

[00:05:14] Speaker 00:
Benally's testimony.

[00:05:16] Speaker 00:
take away her testimony and what we're left is a child who had been sleeping and drinking and is a child and is undoubtedly traumatized by whatever may have happened that night and then two medical examiners who cannot tell you how the injuries resulted.

[00:05:35] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:05:36] Speaker 00:
Spinelli's testimony was critical and the district court fundamentally erred in simply concluding without any semblance of process

[00:05:46] Speaker 00:
that it wasn't so.

[00:05:48] Speaker 03:
Well, I'm not sure about your distinction between substantive testimony and impeachment.

[00:05:55] Speaker 03:
When you say, then take away her testimony totally because she lied.

[00:06:00] Speaker 03:
But she didn't change the specific testimony about misconduct.

[00:06:06] Speaker 03:
On the issues that she lied about, like having been drinking,

[00:06:13] Speaker 03:
Did the prosecutor in closing, either opening closed or rebuttal closed, point out, and this was a sober woman who knew what was going on?

[00:06:20] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
He did.

[00:06:22] Speaker 00:
There were two eyewitnesses that the government needed to directly connect Mr. Lansing with what happened to Ms.

[00:06:31] Speaker 00:
Clark, the decedent.

[00:06:33] Speaker 00:
And again, one of them is a kid who had been drinking and couldn't tell you if it was light or dark at 11 a.m.

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
The other is Ms.

[00:06:39] Speaker 00:
Benally, who absolutely

[00:06:41] Speaker 00:
had a personal interest in lying to protect herself.

[00:06:45] Speaker 00:
And what the district court, regardless of what you think about Ms.

[00:06:49] Speaker 00:
Benally or what I think about Ms.

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
Benally, the district court had an obligation to do more than rush to sentencing.

[00:07:01] Speaker 00:
Without honoring the processes and procedures in place, there can be no faith in the integrity of the conviction, and the district court

[00:07:12] Speaker 00:
jammed through it simply to get to sentencing and move on.

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
The defendant knew the facts since he was there.

[00:07:36] Speaker 01:
Is evidence newly discovered if the defendant all along knew

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
contrary facts that came out later through the affidavit.

[00:07:47] Speaker 00:
First of all, I'm going to say it's a presumption of what Mr. Lansing knew or didn't know, given the amount of alcohol and the intensity of what was happening.

[00:07:54] Speaker 00:
Notwithstanding that, for it to be newly discovered, it cannot have existed before trial.

[00:08:03] Speaker 00:
We presume competent counsel, and it is based on that that we have

[00:08:08] Speaker 00:
the courts have limited the notion of newly discovered evidence to something that a defendant should not or could not have known.

[00:08:15] Speaker 00:
That absolutely depends on the existence of effective, even if not wholly competent, counsel.

[00:08:22] Speaker 00:
And that was 100% missing from Mr. Lansing's trial case.

[00:08:27] Speaker 01:
To hold him... So the problem here is the defendant might have known it, but his trial counsel did not.

[00:08:33] Speaker 01:
Absolutely.

[00:08:35] Speaker 01:
And the trial counsel did not know because

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
Trial counsel decided... He didn't ask or it wasn't volunteered by... Trial counsel, even if Mr. Lansing had volunteered anything, that would have been a, not a virtual, a real impossibility because trial counsel didn't visit, didn't call, didn't communicate with his client.

[00:08:55] Speaker 00:
Trial counsel was, in the words of this court, a mere friend of the court rather than an active advocate.

[00:09:02] Speaker 01:
Trial counsel fell down.

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
Sounds like a pretty good ineffective assistance of counsel claimant.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
How do we factor into the motion for new trial?

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
Sure, absolutely.

[00:09:13] Speaker 01:
I mean, I see the relevance, but is it really an element of what we should consider for your argument?

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
It is, Your Honor, because for two reasons, and let's hope I remember both of them.

[00:09:24] Speaker 00:
One, this court absolutely has addressed ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal when the record is so pollusively obvious.

[00:09:32] Speaker 00:
This is pretty much it.

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
We don't need to go through every minutiae of mistakes that trial counsel made.

[00:09:38] Speaker 00:
We have enough on its face.

[00:09:40] Speaker 00:
Second of all, in addition to the motion for a new trial, one of the grounds Mr. Lansing raised was ineffective assistance of counsel.

[00:09:47] Speaker 00:
And he specifically asked for a hearing on that.

[00:09:50] Speaker 00:
And under this court's precedent, when a defendant makes a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a district court is required to hold a hearing.

[00:10:03] Speaker 00:
And the district court absolutely did not hold that hearing.

[00:10:08] Speaker 04:
Judge, I think you had a question.

[00:10:11] Speaker 04:
Actually, I was going to ask the same question.

[00:10:13] Speaker 04:
If you already know all the facts and you don't tell them to your attorney, I think the concern is if we say, well, you have to tell them to your attorney, that creates an incentive for the defendant not to tell his attorney.

[00:10:32] Speaker 04:
after conviction on appeal go, ah, can you help me with that?

[00:10:37] Speaker 04:
I will try.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:10:39] Speaker 00:
In the first instance, I will say that this case seems to be a unicorn.

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
It's relatively rare that we get such an egregious case of ineffective assistance of counsel that whatever a defendant may or may not know remains well hidden due to the absence of effective counsel.

[00:11:02] Speaker 00:
And the case law and fundamental fairness, I would say, are in your favor where the defendant cannot withhold information with the hopes of playing, quote, the evidentiary trump card after the fact.

[00:11:17] Speaker 00:
I will say this court was quite gracious to the defendant and the district court in United States versus Meacham.

[00:11:24] Speaker 00:
It's a 2009 case.

[00:11:25] Speaker 00:
This is the one where the defendant, after his trial full on,

[00:11:29] Speaker 00:
manufactured evidence that he claimed was newly discovered.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
And the district court in honoring the process, in honoring the integrity of the conviction said, okay, let's have a hearing.

[00:11:43] Speaker 00:
And he went through the five steps that this court has, the five criteria.

[00:11:47] Speaker 00:
And at the end of the day he said, I'll even give you newly discovered, wink, we all know it's not.

[00:11:54] Speaker 00:
Your evidence is incredible.

[00:11:56] Speaker 00:
But there was a hearing, there was a process, there was an opportunity to test it.

[00:12:00] Speaker 00:
And that simply didn't happen in this case.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
And if there are no further questions, I will reserve them.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
Just quickly, looking at my notes, did the district court reject the ineffective assistance claim on the merits below?

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
No, the district court refused to consider the ineffective assistance claim below.

[00:12:23] Speaker 01:
And you didn't appeal that?

[00:12:24] Speaker 00:
We did not.

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:12:27] Speaker 00:
I'll reserve the remainder of my time.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
Mr. Palmer.

[00:12:50] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, Joseph Palmer for the government.

[00:12:53] Speaker 02:
I'd like to just briefly begin by explaining why we think the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel isn't properly before the court, and then talk about the merits of the newly discovered evidence issue, which we think is the sole question presented here.

[00:13:10] Speaker 02:
Now, the district judge denied the motion as to ineffective assistance of counsel on two grounds.

[00:13:16] Speaker 02:
One of them was timeliness, and one of them is on the merits.

[00:13:20] Speaker 02:
And the district court's decision at page 38

[00:13:24] Speaker 02:
of the Volume 6 of the supplemental record, the district says, I'm on to the merits now and not just time.

[00:13:30] Speaker 02:
And then the district judge explained that it was denying the ineffective assistance of counsel ground for the Rule 33 motion because the claim wasn't apparent to the judge on the record.

[00:13:44] Speaker 02:
The judge says, I didn't see ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
These ineffective assistance of counsel claims require record development.

[00:13:51] Speaker 02:
And so I'm deferring those claims to a collateral proceeding under Section 2255.

[00:13:56] Speaker 02:
And it denied the Rule 33 motion without prejudice to raising the ineffective assistance of counsel claims in a Section 2255 proceeding.

[00:14:05] Speaker 02:
Now, there's no question that it's within the district court's discretion to do that.

[00:14:09] Speaker 02:
Section 2255 is the standard procedural vehicle for ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

[00:14:16] Speaker 02:
And more importantly,

[00:14:18] Speaker 02:
The defendant's briefing doesn't challenge the district court's decision to do that.

[00:14:23] Speaker 02:
And so because there's no challenge in front of you, there's no argument that the district court erred or abused its discretion in deferring the ineffective assistance of counsel claims for the Section 2255 proceeding.

[00:14:34] Speaker 02:
Those claims aren't before the court.

[00:14:36] Speaker 02:
And they shouldn't be imported into the claim that is before the court, which is whether the district court abused its discretion in finding that the

[00:14:47] Speaker 02:
five element test for newly discovered evidence wasn't met here.

[00:14:52] Speaker 02:
Now, if I could just turn to that issue.

[00:14:54] Speaker 02:
But first, it's important to recognize that this court's cases say that new trial motions based on newly discovered evidence aren't favorably regarded and should be granted only with caution.

[00:15:04] Speaker 02:
And the court gives broad deference to a district court's determination that those new evidence wouldn't have affected the outcome.

[00:15:11] Speaker 02:
because the court recognizes that the judge who had a front row seat at the trial is in the best position to make that call.

[00:15:19] Speaker 02:
And in this case, the district judge who heard and saw the witnesses firsthand made the call that the evidence in Shannon Benally's affidavit wouldn't have affected the outcome, and this court should defer to that fact-bound judgment.

[00:15:41] Speaker 02:
Defendant's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence couldn't satisfy any of the five element test for relief under Rule 33 based on newly discovered evidence.

[00:15:53] Speaker 02:
First, the evidence wasn't newly discovered because it was known to the defendant before the trial.

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
He knew whether he had a sexual relationship with Shannon Benali.

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
He knew whether she had drunk alcohol.

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
He knew whether there had been any physical contact between the two women.

[00:16:10] Speaker 03:
And evidence that is- What about the argument that he was too impaired to know these facts?

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
Well, first of all, that wouldn't go to the relationship side of things.

[00:16:26] Speaker 02:
And I'm not sure that that claim was raised below.

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
And I just don't think that generally the potential intoxication of the defendant

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
as applied to transactions where he was there, is really an excuse for the requirement that, generally, if the allegedly newly discovered evidence is conversations or events at which the defendant was present, it's reasonable for the district judge to find that this isn't newly discovered evidence because he knew about it before the trial.

[00:17:06] Speaker 02:
The defendant also can't carry his burden to show that his counsel acted diligently in discovering this information before the trial.

[00:17:15] Speaker 02:
He argues affirmatively that his counsel wasn't diligent.

[00:17:18] Speaker 02:
And so that might help him in the 2255 proceeding for ineffective assistance of counsel, but it forecloses his ability to establish that second element of the test for newly discovered evidence.

[00:17:31] Speaker 02:
The third and fourth prongs.

[00:17:32] Speaker 02:
In this case, the district court reasonably found that the evidence was at most merely impeaching and wasn't material to the principal issues at trial.

[00:17:43] Speaker 02:
The material aspect of Ms.

[00:17:44] Speaker 02:
Manali's testimony was that she saw Mr. Lansing brutally attack the victim at the creek.

[00:17:53] Speaker 02:
In her affidavit, she doesn't recant, and she doesn't contradict, and she doesn't undermine that

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
principal aspect of her testimony.

[00:18:03] Speaker 02:
And her affidavit also couldn't help Mr. Lansing establish his new theory that it was Ms.

[00:18:08] Speaker 02:
Benally who committed the murder.

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
He claims that it might help him establish a motive.

[00:18:14] Speaker 02:
But the jury was aware that Mr. Lansing was in a romantic relationship with both of these women.

[00:18:21] Speaker 02:
And the evidence about physical contact was even less material.

[00:18:24] Speaker 02:
Of course there was physical contact between two women who spent the whole day together in a small SUV

[00:18:30] Speaker 02:
crammed with three other people.

[00:18:34] Speaker 02:
And the last element of the test, Mr. Lansing must show that he would probably be acquitted based on this new evidence.

[00:18:42] Speaker 02:
And the district court reasonably found that he couldn't make that showing.

[00:18:46] Speaker 02:
Because the evidence that it was Ms.

[00:18:48] Speaker 02:
Benally who committed the murder is essentially non-existent.

[00:18:52] Speaker 02:
And the evidence that it was Mr. Lansing was strong.

[00:18:56] Speaker 02:
And that evidence includes not only

[00:18:59] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:18:59] Speaker 02:
Benally's unrecanted testimony that she saw Mr. Lansing attack the victim.

[00:19:05] Speaker 02:
But it also includes, of course, the testimony of the victim's daughter, who described in detail how it was Mr. Lansing who beat her mother to death and drowned her in the creek.

[00:19:17] Speaker 02:
Now, he's attempted to wave away that testimony because she was young and because he forced her to drink half a can of beer.

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
How old was she?

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
She was 10 years old at the time of the

[00:19:28] Speaker 02:
incident and 12 years old when she testified.

[00:19:32] Speaker 02:
And that is old enough to know the difference between whether it was Mr. Lansing who killed her mother or Ms.

[00:19:39] Speaker 02:
Benali.

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
And her testimony, as for sleeping, her testimony is clear and detailed about that she was awake when she saw the crucial events that she testified about.

[00:19:50] Speaker 02:
She said that she woke up when Mr. Lansing pulled her mother from the car.

[00:19:56] Speaker 02:
She was awake when she saw him

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
punching her mother, kicking her mother, beating her mother with a bat, beating her mother with a rock.

[00:20:05] Speaker 02:
She was awake when she begged him to stop hurting her mother and he threatened her that he would hurt her too if she tried to intervene.

[00:20:13] Speaker 02:
She was awake when she saw him drag her mother by the hair into the river and continue beating her with a rock as she lay helpless in the water.

[00:20:22] Speaker 02:
She was awake when he told her to lie and tell the authorities that her mother had died accidentally.

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
And she was awake when he took her back to the scene the next day to help recover the evidence.

[00:20:38] Speaker 02:
And if this weren't sufficient, Lansing's own conduct in attempting to cover up the crime confirmed that it was he and not Ms.

[00:20:45] Speaker 02:
Manali who committed the murder.

[00:20:49] Speaker 02:
It was Mr. Lansing and not Ms.

[00:20:52] Speaker 02:
Manali who brought in the body.

[00:20:55] Speaker 02:
And it was Mr. Lansing and not Ms.

[00:20:57] Speaker 02:
Manali who's heard on a 911 call telling the victim's daughter not to say anything.

[00:21:03] Speaker 02:
It was Mr. Lansing and not Ms.

[00:21:04] Speaker 02:
Manali who told everyone the obvious lie that the victim had died accidentally and that he had done his best to save her.

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
It was Mr. Lansing and not Ms.

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
Manali who went back to the scene the next day to retrieve the evidence.

[00:21:22] Speaker 02:
It was Mr. Lansing and not Ms.

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
Manali who cleaned his car.

[00:21:27] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, the bottom line is that the district judge who heard these witnesses and saw the trial found that this evidence wasn't sufficient to establish a likelihood of acquittal.

[00:21:40] Speaker 02:
Mr. Lansing has given no reason for this court to second-guess that judgment.

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
If there are no further questions, Your Honor.

[00:21:47] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mr. Palmer.

[00:21:51] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:21:51] Speaker 03:
Dingell, you have just under three minutes.

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
Just a few points I'd like to make.

[00:22:03] Speaker 00:
Broad deference to the district court doesn't mean lying deference.

[00:22:07] Speaker 00:
What the district court did, despite the hyperbole from the government, nobody is denying that this was a terrible attack and a brutal murder.

[00:22:19] Speaker 00:
What is fundamentally at issue is the integrity of the conviction.

[00:22:23] Speaker 00:
Can we trust it?

[00:22:24] Speaker 00:
And we cannot.

[00:22:26] Speaker 00:
And what the district court did, without a hearing,

[00:22:29] Speaker 00:
and based on its own inferences and interpretation of the evidence said, it's not newly discovered, it's not material, it's merely impeaching, it's due diligence, whatever, we're done.

[00:22:42] Speaker 00:
It simply repeated the words as though chanting a spell and that can never stand when a person's liberty is at stake.

[00:22:51] Speaker 03:
When you say there was no hearing, it was done on briefing, is that what you're saying?

[00:22:55] Speaker 00:
It was done on briefing and there was a hearing on the briefing.

[00:22:58] Speaker 00:
The district court at no point was interested in hearing from Ms.

[00:23:02] Speaker 00:
Finnelli and her highly generalized admissions of lies.

[00:23:07] Speaker 03:
And the motion for new trial requested an evidentiary hearing at which she would testify?

[00:23:15] Speaker 00:
In the alternative, it did request that, sort of saying, what district court?

[00:23:19] Speaker 00:
We would like one.

[00:23:22] Speaker 03:
And the district court said... And did it indicate what they expected to elicit from her?

[00:23:28] Speaker 03:
at an evidentiary hearing so that the judge could know, well, there's something more to this than the... Because it was the defense that got her affidavit, so the defense would know if there was something more that could have been put in the affidavit or whatever.

[00:23:49] Speaker 03:
Does that argue against an evidentiary hearing?

[00:23:51] Speaker 00:
No, it doesn't, Your Honor.

[00:23:53] Speaker 00:
There's no requirement in the rule or in the local rules or even from this court's

[00:23:58] Speaker 00:
case law that says if you're going to ask for a motion for a new trial, not only do you need to produce something, your filings need to be incredibly detailed as to what further you intend to elicit if there were to be an evidentiary hearing.

[00:24:12] Speaker 00:
That's just simply not a requirement.

[00:24:14] Speaker 03:
You don't think the district court could assume that because you hadn't put anything further in the affidavit that there really wasn't anything material to be

[00:24:28] Speaker 03:
gained by having an evidentiary hearing.

[00:24:31] Speaker 00:
We risk the fundamental principles of justice when we allow district court assumptions to stand in the place of factual findings.

[00:24:42] Speaker 00:
So no, I don't think that's ever acceptable.

[00:24:44] Speaker 00:
And I see my time has run out, so I will submit the case.

[00:24:46] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:24:47] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:24:49] Speaker 03:
The case is submitted.

[00:24:51] Speaker 03:
Counselor excused.