[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:00:02] Speaker 04:
My name is Manuel Murdoch, and I'm the attorney for the appellant, Mohammed Nawai.

[00:00:07] Speaker 04:
I'd like to reserve two minutes for a bottle.

[00:00:10] Speaker 04:
May it please the court, the district judge here plainly erred when he denied Mr. Nawai's motion for a judgment of equivalent to Rule 29A.

[00:00:21] Speaker 01:
Under Rule 29A, I'm sure you're not going to be surprised, especially based on the last argument.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
And I'm going to say under Rule 29A, what's my standard of review?

[00:00:33] Speaker 04:
In this case, it's plain error.

[00:00:35] Speaker 01:
I know it's plain error.

[00:00:36] Speaker 01:
But if I didn't have the fact that nobody made a motion at the end of trial, and I just had Rule 29 in front of me, what would be my standard?

[00:00:45] Speaker 04:
It would be a de novo review.

[00:00:47] Speaker 01:
No, it wouldn't be an adobo.

[00:00:50] Speaker 01:
I would look at it and I would say, hey, giving the prosecution every benefit of the doubt as to the facts they're in, there's no evidence which would sustain this conviction.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
Isn't that my standard in Rule 29?

[00:01:08] Speaker 04:
The way I understand it is that it's actually, would a rational juror find that there's enough evidence to find the conviction?

[00:01:16] Speaker 01:
I have construed the evidence in the light most favorable to prosecution than any rational juror.

[00:01:23] Speaker 01:
That means it doesn't have to be a wild juror, just anybody could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:01:34] Speaker 01:
now the judge has to look at that look at this and say is there any evidence that would sustain this at the time of the rule 29 motion now based on the fact nobody made a motion at the end of the trial not only did the judge have to make an error the judge has to make a plain error right correct so

[00:02:05] Speaker 01:
Here, if I read what the judge did and what the judge had in front of him, I guess I'm having a tough time understanding how one could get to that fact.

[00:02:19] Speaker 01:
Your brief argues all your evidence, but you never even look at what evidence was really in the case.

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
You never look at the evidence which the prosecutor put forth to judge

[00:02:33] Speaker 01:
windmill when he was making this, he went through and laid out exactly what the evidence was that could convict your client.

[00:02:47] Speaker 01:
You never even address that in your brief.

[00:02:51] Speaker 01:
How can I suggest in that instance there's error?

[00:02:56] Speaker 04:
Well, certainly, I'm not suggesting that they didn't present evidence.

[00:03:00] Speaker 01:
I think they were...

[00:03:05] Speaker 01:
discussed her age several times.

[00:03:07] Speaker 01:
They all suggested she was age 13, that she was a virgin, that she gave her information about how to get ready to have sex.

[00:03:16] Speaker 01:
He sent her images of 13-year-old girls having sex, said they were 13.

[00:03:21] Speaker 01:
He told her to masturbate.

[00:03:23] Speaker 01:
He commented that it may be too early for her to have sex.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
All of those things are in the record, and that's exactly what the prosecution said to Judge Windmill.

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
How can you throw this out, given this evidence?

[00:03:38] Speaker 01:
And you don't even talk to me about it in your brief.

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
I'm trying to figure out, what do I do about that?

[00:03:47] Speaker 04:
Well, our contention here is today is despite that evidence, I acknowledge that they submitted that.

[00:03:52] Speaker 01:
Well, you can't say despite.

[00:03:53] Speaker 01:
This is all the evidence most favorable to the prosecution.

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
That's why I'm not arguing about your evidence, those pictures.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
I could say what part of those is favorable to prosecution, and we could have an argument, but I don't want that argument.

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
What I don't understand is here I have this review on a 29 motion at the end of trial.

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
Nobody makes it just that.

[00:04:17] Speaker 01:
It's got to be clear error.

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
And now you want me to find it.

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
I'm having a tough time.

[00:04:28] Speaker 04:
Well,

[00:04:30] Speaker 01:
I mean, address the evidence that the prosecution had that you've never addressed any other place.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
How do I get rid of that evidence in suggesting that this conviction should not have been maintained?

[00:04:45] Speaker 01:
That the Rule 29 motion should have been granted.

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
How do I get rid of it?

[00:04:51] Speaker 04:
Well, I'm not suggesting that it just goes away, or that you do get rid of it.

[00:04:55] Speaker 01:
Do you think your evidence is so far superior that it undoes this evidence?

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
Is that what you're arguing?

[00:05:01] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:05:01] Speaker 03:
Yes, exactly.

[00:05:04] Speaker 03:
Well, but how can that be?

[00:05:05] Speaker 03:
Because I mean, as Judge Smith has just noted, that we have to give all, you had the opportunity to make this argument to a jury.

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
And so our review is not to sit in the place of the jury again.

[00:05:18] Speaker 03:
We have to give the prosecution all benefit of the doubt.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
And so I don't know how you can, I mean, what you seem to be advocating for is a reweighing of the evidence to say, yes,

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
I mean, do you have any response to this incriminating evidence?

[00:05:36] Speaker 03:
You're just saying that's all there, but we have this other stuff.

[00:05:39] Speaker 03:
We have these photos that suggest that she was over 13.

[00:05:42] Speaker 04:
That's exactly it.

[00:05:43] Speaker 04:
That is there.

[00:05:44] Speaker 04:
I understand that.

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
But if five pieces of evidence weigh for you, and five pieces of it, and I'm not even saying that's where this sits out, but if it's equal, that's what the jury's system's for.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
The jury gets to decide how to weigh those

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
competing pieces of evidence.

[00:05:59] Speaker 03:
Before us, you have to come in and say, there isn't five, there's not five pieces of evidence that support the prosecution, there's zero.

[00:06:07] Speaker 03:
Isn't that what the standard requires us to do?

[00:06:12] Speaker 04:
Looking at the case law that was cited in the government's brief and other case law, where this court has weighed that out, whether they decide, is there sufficient evidence or is there insufficient evidence to maintain the conviction?

[00:06:24] Speaker 04:
What I see this court doing

[00:06:26] Speaker 04:
is once again looking at all the evidence and then just making a judgment call.

[00:06:29] Speaker 04:
They look at the elements that are required to be proven and then they look and see what evidence supports that and whether it's there or not.

[00:06:36] Speaker 01:
But that's already been, that call has already been made.

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
I now have to give deference to that judge.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
And I give deference to that judge by looking at all the evidence

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
based on what the prosecution wants me to say.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
I can't look at your side.

[00:06:56] Speaker 01:
I can't take your client's side here.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
It's based on what the prosecution wants it to say.

[00:07:04] Speaker 01:
And then I have to make that determination.

[00:07:07] Speaker 01:
That's why this is so tough.

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
That's why a Rule 29 motion, which I had a lot of times on the bench, was so tough for me.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
I couldn't just say, what do I think?

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
I've got to say, well, if I look at it in the best possible light for the prosecutor, can I really say there's nothing?

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
And that's why you couldn't grant a lot of them.

[00:07:30] Speaker 01:
Even though you may have agreed with the defendant, you gotta look at all the evidence and give it the best possible light for the prosecutor.

[00:07:39] Speaker 03:
Let me ask it this way, what's your best case to show that this was plain error here?

[00:07:45] Speaker 03:
You've kind of intimated that there's these other cases where we've reweighted, but what's your best case that says that we can go in and sort of reweight this evidence and do a new calculus?

[00:08:00] Speaker 04:
I will answer that question.

[00:08:02] Speaker 04:
I can just see that I'm getting close to my two minutes.

[00:08:04] Speaker 03:
You can always answer our question.

[00:08:06] Speaker 03:
We'll give you time to do that.

[00:08:08] Speaker 04:
As I researched this and looked at the cases, what I found is that I couldn't find a case that was really similar to this one.

[00:08:19] Speaker 03:
Well, I appreciate your candor, but doesn't that undermine the whole argument?

[00:08:22] Speaker 03:
You've got to show it's plain error.

[00:08:24] Speaker 03:
If you can't find a case, doesn't that mean you don't meet the plain error standard?

[00:08:32] Speaker 04:
Well, this could certainly be an original case.

[00:08:35] Speaker 04:
And I think it is, under the facts and circumstances that were presented and that I brought out about the photographs and his doubt as to whether it was her in the photographs.

[00:08:46] Speaker 04:
What I see, I mean, I have seen cases where the court comes down, looks at the evidence, and says, obviously, there's plenty here.

[00:08:53] Speaker 04:
There was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.

[00:08:58] Speaker 04:
Other cases where they come down and say no,

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
there was not enough evidence to sustain the conviction.

[00:09:05] Speaker 04:
What I think the value is in those cases is just looking at the process.

[00:09:10] Speaker 04:
And going back to what I was talking about before, is this court would have the work right now to go back and look at the evidence and decide whether or not there was enough to sustain the conviction on that element.

[00:09:24] Speaker 00:
Let me ask it in a more concrete way.

[00:09:27] Speaker 00:
If this record shows, if there's information in this record that indicates maybe he did know that she was 13, and then there's evidence in the record that indicates maybe he didn't know that she was 13, then there's nothing we can do about that, right?

[00:09:40] Speaker 00:
We would look at it in the lightmost favorable of the prosecution and say, well, I guess if it was a judgment call, could go either way, jury got to decide.

[00:09:48] Speaker 00:
So it seems to me you, to win, have to point to us something that definitively shows

[00:09:54] Speaker 00:
he thought she was not 13, that she was an adult.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
What's the one piece of evidence?

[00:10:00] Speaker 00:
Is it just the picture that you have argued in the case indicates that she looked older than 13?

[00:10:08] Speaker 04:
Partly.

[00:10:08] Speaker 04:
It's not just the pictures, but it's the effect that the pictures had on him when he saw them.

[00:10:14] Speaker 04:
It caused him to doubt that it was even her in the pictures and caused him to doubt her age.

[00:10:20] Speaker 00:
Okay, so then it seems like we're back to this is a judgment call because

[00:10:24] Speaker 00:
yet he questioned her in their communications about that doesn't look right, that's not you, whatever.

[00:10:31] Speaker 00:
But then after that, we have more communications between the two of them where at a minimum, he's going along with the ruse that she's 13.

[00:10:39] Speaker 00:
And wouldn't a jury be able to look at that and go, maybe he was playing along, or maybe he thought she was 13?

[00:10:48] Speaker 04:
Yes, that's certainly an interpretation.

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
Is it a reasonable one?

[00:10:53] Speaker 04:
I don't believe that a rational juror would come to that conclusion in light of the other evidence that I cited.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
We'll give you a little bit of time for rebuttal as well.

[00:11:04] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:11:04] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:11:19] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:11:21] Speaker 02:
My name is David Robbins and I have the privilege of representing the United States.

[00:11:26] Speaker 02:
It's nice to join you here today in Idaho Falls for the first time in Ninth Circuit history.

[00:11:31] Speaker 02:
Your honors, the sole issue before this court is whether or not the district court plainly aired in denying the defendant's Rule 29 motion.

[00:11:38] Speaker 02:
The district court did not plainly air.

[00:11:42] Speaker 02:
Rule 29s are often raised.

[00:11:43] Speaker 02:
It's a flag that's often raised but very rarely saluted given the high deferential standard to the prosecution.

[00:11:49] Speaker 02:
And the light most favorable to the prosecutor, it's a question of whether or not any rational juror could conclude that this case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:11:56] Speaker 02:
And in this case, the evidence I would submit to this court is simply overwhelming.

[00:12:00] Speaker 02:
And there's four large areas of evidence in this case that support that conclusion.

[00:12:05] Speaker 02:
The first are the direct communications from the cap persona.

[00:12:09] Speaker 02:
The cap persona told the defendant in the communications approximately 11 times her age explicitly as being 13.

[00:12:17] Speaker 02:
The cap persona within 11 minutes stated she was 13 in the communications.

[00:12:23] Speaker 02:
In addition, images were sent that corroborated the appearance of a child.

[00:12:29] Speaker 03:
Can I ask about the images, because that seems to be where this

[00:12:32] Speaker 03:
sort of hits a little bit of a stumbling block because the images, it's interesting how these are set up.

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
They're composite images.

[00:12:40] Speaker 03:
They're not, I mean, is it fair to say they're AI generated?

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor.

[00:12:44] Speaker 03:
Okay, tell me a little bit about that.

[00:12:45] Speaker 02:
Off the record, it's not in the record.

[00:12:47] Speaker 02:
To some limited extent it is, but they will find an adult woman, usually a volunteer or a police officer, somebody associated with law enforcement, and then they will age regress them through software.

[00:12:56] Speaker 02:
So it's AI to some extent, but not AI-generated.

[00:12:59] Speaker 03:
But not in the initial.

[00:13:00] Speaker 03:
So they're from a real photo, and then they're regressed.

[00:13:05] Speaker 03:
Admittedly, you look at some of these photos, and he had the rational response of, that's not you.

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
That's not a 13-year-old individual.

[00:13:14] Speaker 03:
Why is it done that way?

[00:13:16] Speaker 03:
I mean, do you agree?

[00:13:17] Speaker 03:
I mean, I know what the legal response is, but I'm more interested in if that casts doubt,

[00:13:25] Speaker 03:
isn't that a reasonable doubt for him to have to say well I know you told me you're 13 but you sent me a photo that you say is you and it's clearly not 13.

[00:13:35] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, it's much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the interpretation of these images are in the eye of the beholder.

[00:13:40] Speaker 02:
And in this case, that was an image of the same child, age regressed at various stages.

[00:13:44] Speaker 02:
And I cannot agree with the court that it does show somebody under the age of majority.

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
As we all know, pubescence and maturity take varying steps.

[00:13:52] Speaker 02:
And in this particular case, when it's sent over a messenger, it's a compressed file as viewed on a cell phone.

[00:13:57] Speaker 02:
It may not appear in the high-definition way as presented.

[00:14:00] Speaker 02:
And, of course, shading and the complexities of life, and as I mentioned, the pubescent stages don't make that evidently clear.

[00:14:05] Speaker 02:
And, of course, the jury was free to draw that inference.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
Well, I think that's, I mean, to a certain degree, it seems like your response to my question is it doesn't really matter, for that very reason.

[00:14:14] Speaker 03:
It was sent to the jury.

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
The jury made the determination.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
And so, for Rule 29, it's not, my questions are interesting but not really relevant, I think.

[00:14:24] Speaker 02:
I would agree with the court yes because of course the jury could have easily found if they wanted to and I wouldn't say easily found given the weight of the evidence but they could have looked at that and said oh yeah that one image that shows a hint of a bosom and perhaps a tattoo or shadow or ribbing and the curvature of the hip and the relative heights perhaps that provided the doubt but that certainly wasn't the case here on the balance of all the evidence.

[00:14:45] Speaker 00:
I read the record of all the communications and my recollection is that after that photo was sent

[00:14:54] Speaker 00:
There was, well actually I don't remember, the videos that were sent of young girls engaging in sexual activity.

[00:15:00] Speaker 00:
Was that before or after the pictures that we're talking about?

[00:15:03] Speaker 02:
It was after, Your Honor.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
It was after?

[00:15:04] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:15:05] Speaker 00:
And there certainly was discussion after those photos about preparing somebody who is not sexually active for sex.

[00:15:13] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:15:14] Speaker 02:
As a matter of fact, there was an image sent prior to the questionable image that wasn't necessarily nudity, but close to it, in which the defendant was discussing an anatomical term he wanted her to take a picture with or play.

[00:15:25] Speaker 02:
And then after the questionable image, it then proceeds to pornography, full sexual intercourse, in which the defendant represented it as being a 13-year-old, the same age as the cat persona.

[00:15:36] Speaker 02:
But when we look at the direct communications, both stated ages, both circumstances as well, the cap persona the entire time was in role.

[00:15:46] Speaker 02:
Grandmother, parents, phone taken away, grounding, they don't give licenses to 13 year olds, is a very convincing, in my estimation, ruse and there's plenty of evidence by which the jury can conclude as they did.

[00:15:56] Speaker 02:
In addition to that, we have the defendant's responses.

[00:15:58] Speaker 02:
The defendant responded and acknowledged the age a total of 10 times during the conversation.

[00:16:04] Speaker 02:
The defendant was concerned about pain with sexual intercourse, a concern that wouldn't normally attend intercourse with an adult.

[00:16:11] Speaker 02:
And then, of course, he coached and encouraged masturbation to ready the child for sex.

[00:16:15] Speaker 02:
In addition to that, he sent the images, and he also expressed in his communications concerns about being caught by the grandma and getting in trouble at no time.

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
Did the cat persona ever say she was above the age of 13?

[00:16:27] Speaker 02:
And at no time did the defendant ever accuse the cat persona of being above the age of 13.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
So what was said is just as important as what was not said.

[00:16:37] Speaker 02:
In this case, Cat never said she was an adult.

[00:16:39] Speaker 02:
She never said she was role playing.

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
She never said she was fantasizing.

[00:16:42] Speaker 02:
And she never expressed communications inconsistent with the persona held by law enforcement.

[00:16:47] Speaker 03:
And even if any of those had existed, that still would have been a question for the jury, right?

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
Still would have, Your Honor, and I'd submit we win because this was a properly given verdict on ample evidence.

[00:16:56] Speaker 02:
But that was never said, which just supports the district court's conclusion and underscores the fact that they did not plainly err.

[00:17:03] Speaker 02:
In addition to the defendant's statements, what he didn't say, he never said he was role playing.

[00:17:07] Speaker 02:
He never said he was fantasizing.

[00:17:09] Speaker 02:
He never indicated that he thought the child was above age.

[00:17:12] Speaker 02:
He just simply accused an image of not being the same image of the child, not even necessarily reflecting on age and propriety.

[00:17:19] Speaker 02:
So what was said versus what was not said tells the entire story.

[00:17:23] Speaker 02:
Now, with respect to defense counsel, I appreciate their motion, but it is false.

[00:17:26] Speaker 02:
The analysis is fatally flawed for two large reasons.

[00:17:30] Speaker 02:
The first reason is it does ignore the entirety of the evidentiary universe.

[00:17:34] Speaker 02:
He raises one major point in his brief saying that the profile listed the child ages 20.

[00:17:39] Speaker 02:
And that's typical practice in these cases, because if you put 14, the app won't let you in in the first place, and the ability for law enforcement to operate in these spaces to catch them won't work.

[00:17:48] Speaker 02:
But within 11 minutes, very near the onset of the conversation, the cap persona states, I'm 13 years old.

[00:17:55] Speaker 02:
Please don't report me.

[00:17:56] Speaker 02:
The defendant acknowledges that age and even goes further, saying you're going to be banned from this platform, and they move communications to another platform.

[00:18:04] Speaker 02:
So while the defendant says that her representation of age of 20 should have granted automatically the Rule 29 motion, it ignores the remaining evidence.

[00:18:13] Speaker 02:
And that is not a proper analysis under Rule 29.

[00:18:15] Speaker 02:
It's not a puzzle to be smashed apart to individually examine a piece and determine we don't know what the picture is.

[00:18:21] Speaker 02:
In addition, it certainly doesn't give the benefits of the light most favorable to the government in his analysis.

[00:18:27] Speaker 02:
As was mentioned with the picture,

[00:18:29] Speaker 02:
Of course, it could be an above-age woman with a tattoo on her rib cage, which would indicate that she may be over the age of 18.

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
And truth be told, there are 13-year-olds with tattoo.

[00:18:38] Speaker 02:
It only requires parental consent.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
that being said the detective on the stand testified that it may be shadowed could be rib cage and we don't know what the defendant thought but we are required to interpret that evidence in the light most favorable to the government that certainly could be a thirteen-year-old child.

[00:18:52] Speaker 03:
I guess I keep coming back even if these clearly were photos of a twenty year old or an adult

[00:19:00] Speaker 03:
that still wouldn't actually get the appellant the relief they're seeking, right?

[00:19:06] Speaker 03:
Because you can't just ignore this other evidence.

[00:19:09] Speaker 03:
The other evidence has to almost be negated out to zero, right?

[00:19:13] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor, it does.

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
And I would simply submit that this case is overwhelming when we look at it and provide the best inferences to the government, the light most favorable, the rational trier of fact, and we look at the entire evidentiary universe

[00:19:25] Speaker 02:
this case was properly decided, the jury returned a just verdict, and the court certainly did not plainly err in their interpretation of a Rule 29 motion by the defendant.

[00:19:35] Speaker 02:
So with that, I will respectfully submit to this panel, but before I do, I will stand for any questions.

[00:19:40] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:19:41] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:19:43] Speaker 02:
And with respect, I ask that you affirm the district court.

[00:19:45] Speaker 03:
I appreciate it.

[00:19:46] Speaker 03:
And we'll give two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:19:55] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:20:03] Speaker 04:
I understand Kat was in a role and she was playing it.

[00:20:10] Speaker 04:
What is compelling to me is that the role didn't fool Mr.

[00:20:19] Speaker 04:
Once you saw the photographs, he questioned her age.

[00:20:22] Speaker 03:
You use that as a fact that supports you.

[00:20:27] Speaker 03:
I think it actually hurts you, because his claim is, those aren't photos of you.

[00:20:32] Speaker 03:
He didn't say, I question your age.

[00:20:34] Speaker 03:
He said, those aren't photos of you, because those are photos of an adult in year 13.

[00:20:41] Speaker 04:
Well, he didn't say it in those words, but I do believe he did question her age.

[00:20:46] Speaker 04:
in the excerpts on page 209, after he says, you're joking.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
You're joking me.

[00:20:52] Speaker 04:
These aren't your images.

[00:20:54] Speaker 04:
This isn't you in the images.

[00:20:56] Speaker 04:
And then he asks, how old are you?

[00:20:58] Speaker 04:
And this is after she's told him she's 13 years old several times.

[00:21:02] Speaker 04:
To me, he's questioning her age at that point.

[00:21:06] Speaker 04:
Clearly, he wasn't fooled by it.

[00:21:09] Speaker 04:
And from then on, you're correct, there were interactions and further interactions with him.

[00:21:14] Speaker 03:
But you agree that some of the communications that we've referenced earlier happened after the photos were sent.

[00:21:22] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:21:23] Speaker 04:
There were further communications afterwards.

[00:21:26] Speaker 04:
What I see that given he's expressed his doubt as to her age, he has this conversation going with another person that he wants to explore and keep going, not an acknowledgment of what his belief of her age is,

[00:21:37] Speaker 04:
He's just working with what she's giving him to keep the conversation going.

[00:21:42] Speaker 04:
If she says she's 13 years old, sure, he'll go with it.

[00:21:45] Speaker 04:
But that doesn't mean he believed that she was 13 years old.

[00:21:50] Speaker 04:
And I think it's clear that he expressed that, well, as was argued, I think he had good cause to believe that she was an adult based on what was presented.

[00:22:00] Speaker 04:
And so with that, I don't have anything further.

[00:22:03] Speaker 04:
I'll stand for any other questions.

[00:22:04] Speaker 03:
Okay, well thank you.

[00:22:06] Speaker 03:
Thank you to both counsel for your arguments in the case.

[00:22:09] Speaker 03:
The case is now submitted and that concludes our arguments for the day and the court is adjourned.