[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
The next case on the argument calendar is US versus Buck.

[00:00:32] Speaker 02:
May I approach?

[00:00:34] Speaker 04:
Yes, please.

[00:00:36] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:00:36] Speaker 04:
When you're ready, counsel.

[00:00:37] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:00:39] Speaker 02:
Appreciate the opportunity to be here this afternoon.

[00:00:42] Speaker 02:
May it please the court?

[00:00:43] Speaker 02:
My name is Michael Dini, and I represent Mr. Buck.

[00:00:48] Speaker 02:
Before I begin with my arguments, I'd like to take a moment to introduce Mr. Buck's mother, Margaret, as well as members of the Ed Buck Defense Team and members of his extended family as well who are present here in court.

[00:01:01] Speaker 02:
I reserve two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:01:06] Speaker 02:
When asked during trial if he conducted a broader investigation into Mr. Buck, a Maine government investigator responded, I received several phone calls from informants who told us that Mr. Buck was in some sort of party and play behavior and sort of fetishes.

[00:01:22] Speaker 02:
The answer forces us to recall when government agents would troll parks, public restrooms, and bars looking for gay men to arrest for crimes of indecency and nuisance.

[00:01:33] Speaker 02:
and the recent history of the DSM-1, where the definition of sexual deviancy included homosexuality and fetishism.

[00:01:41] Speaker 02:
This record demonstrates reversible error.

[00:01:45] Speaker 02:
Mr. Buck's constitutional rights were violated.

[00:01:47] Speaker 04:
Let me ask you this, counsel, because you're on appeal now, and since your time is short.

[00:01:51] Speaker 04:
So let me get right to what you think is your best issue on appeals.

[00:01:56] Speaker 04:
The evidence is

[00:01:57] Speaker 04:
pretty compelling in this case.

[00:01:59] Speaker 04:
And now that the jury has convicted, every inference goes in the government's favor.

[00:02:05] Speaker 04:
So what's your best issue?

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
I understand that, Your Honor.

[00:02:07] Speaker 02:
If we could begin with count seven and turn to this court's determination with regard to US shelter, we're asking for a judgment of acquittal as to the count on the basis of the insufficiency of the evidence.

[00:02:22] Speaker 02:
And this gets to the issue of this particular defendant's party in play practice.

[00:02:27] Speaker 02:
Now, it's our contention that the drug use within this particular defendant's residence was incidental drug use for purposes of consideration of USV shelter.

[00:02:42] Speaker 02:
If I could explain that, what I mean by that is that even for purposes of the party and play practice, which is involved in this situation and discussed throughout the course of the nine-day trial,

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
Drug use was not a primary purpose, even for the party and play activities which were ongoing in Mr. Buck's apartment.

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
To explain further... Does it have to be for the homicide charges?

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
In other words, let's assume for a moment that the evidence supports the conclusion that Mr. Buck gave methamphetamine to

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
several people and that it was the but-for cause of their death.

[00:03:25] Speaker 01:
I understand you're making an argument about that, but assume that that's true.

[00:03:29] Speaker 01:
Does there have to be a party in play?

[00:03:34] Speaker 01:
allegation also, or isn't that enough to support the homicide?

[00:03:38] Speaker 02:
Well, Judge, the issue goes to whether or not there was something other than circumstantial evidence that Mr. Buck distributed.

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
Well, but see, we don't need more than circumstantial evidence on appeal.

[00:03:50] Speaker 01:
And so I think there's pretty good evidence, whether or not you think it's great evidence, that there were deaths caused by Mr. Buck giving

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
methamphetamine to these two people.

[00:04:05] Speaker 01:
Does it really matter whether he was maintaining a party and play premises to support the conviction for those?

[00:04:13] Speaker 02:
Well, to support the conviction for those particular elements, Your Honor, I would say probably you're correct.

[00:04:19] Speaker 02:
But the problem with regard to the way this case is charged

[00:04:24] Speaker 02:
is that the particular evidence, not only with regard to the party and play aspect, but also with regard to the percipient witnesses who are allowed to testify, that evidence is allowed to bleed in with regard to the issues of whether or not Mr. Buck

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
is the person who distributed drugs to these two individuals in the two death counts, Mr. Moore and Mr. Dean.

[00:04:46] Speaker 02:
And so without the evidence with regard to the party and play aspect of this, without the evidence with regard to the allegations contained within count number seven, which is the maintaining the drug house allegation,

[00:05:02] Speaker 02:
We don't have that bleed-over effect, I believe.

[00:05:05] Speaker 01:
But the evidence would still come in.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
See, what you're saying is the evidence is insufficient to support the part of your play allegation.

[00:05:14] Speaker 01:
Let's assume that's true for a second.

[00:05:16] Speaker 01:
The evidence is still relevant to support the other charges, is it not?

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
In other words, people can come in and say, this is what I saw, and this is what I observed, and this is what I know, even if the government had never brought Count Seven.

[00:05:34] Speaker 02:
Well, then the issue becomes whether or not the prescipient witnesses should have been allowed to testify, especially given the fact that those particular witnesses, the prescipient witnesses, are testifying to cumulative evidence that would have been testified to and, in fact, was testified to during the course of testimonies with regard to counts one through six.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
So those are the distribution counts.

[00:05:59] Speaker 01:
And so there's the fact that the evidence is cumulative, meaning that it doesn't

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
support the convictions?

[00:06:07] Speaker 02:
Certainly not to the issue of supporting the convictions, Judge, but with regard to whether or not it was unfairly prejudicial for

[00:06:16] Speaker 02:
the government to be able to bring in these additional cumulative witnesses, especially the percipient witnesses in the videos, were adding in such a way to create undue prejudice with regard to the jury's ability to make a determination fairly with regard to whether or not Mr. Buck actually distributed the methamphetamine to Mr. Moore and to Mr. Dean.

[00:06:47] Speaker 03:
I guess one way to look at it is just that the district judge's decision to admit evidence under 404B was an abuse of discretion.

[00:06:57] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:06:58] Speaker 02:
And also, we would point to the admission of evidence.

[00:07:01] Speaker 03:
The district judge determined, though, that you can't admit prior bad act evidence under 404B if it goes to MODIS or up around what's going on and not

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
Certainly, but it's... And she basically said, I mean the court said that all this other recipient witness is admissible under 404B because it shows his modus operandi, what not.

[00:07:29] Speaker 02:
Understood, understood.

[00:07:30] Speaker 03:
Why is that an abusive, why is it, in your view it's just too much?

[00:07:35] Speaker 02:
Well, certainly

[00:07:38] Speaker 02:
It's overkill.

[00:07:40] Speaker 02:
And I think that that's exactly the word that I use within the context of my opening brief.

[00:07:45] Speaker 02:
It was unnecessary with regard to development of the practice of this particular defendant, which had already been established through testimony brought in in all of the distribution counts, counts one through six.

[00:08:02] Speaker 01:
But it was already established.

[00:08:04] Speaker 01:
then why is this harmful?

[00:08:07] Speaker 01:
I mean, what you're basically saying is it's overkill because they already proved it.

[00:08:12] Speaker 01:
And my difficulty with that is that why would it be reversible error?

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
It's reversible error, Judge, because what is happening here is that what is being created in the jury's mind

[00:08:24] Speaker 02:
is what they would believe to be irrebuttable evidence that this particular defendant caused the harm to Timothy Dean and Mr. Moore as a result of this constant piling on of evidence from each of these witnesses and each of the videotapes and all of the other evidence that is brought in with regard to his being an evil person.

[00:08:48] Speaker 02:
Gates of Hell is referenced.

[00:08:51] Speaker 02:
Witnesses with regard to chainsaws are being referenced.

[00:08:55] Speaker 02:
Witnesses with regard to all of these other supposed horrific acts, which are not corroborated by evidence other than statements being made, leaves the jury believing something that they not necessarily would have been believing with regard to this defendant absent that information.

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
You want it to save a little bit of time?

[00:09:19] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:09:32] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Chelsea Norrell on behalf of the United States.

[00:09:36] Speaker 00:
I'll start with the other acts of evidence that the court was just asking opposing counsel about.

[00:09:42] Speaker 00:
On appeal, defendant challenges three types of evidence.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
The videos that were admitted, the racial denigration remarks that Mr. Buck made to his victims, and episodes of violence.

[00:09:55] Speaker 00:
On the videos, the court did not plainly err in admitting a small sample of the videos and images showing persons not identified in the indictment engaging in party and play at defendant's apartment.

[00:10:08] Speaker 00:
And this is because it was direct evidence of the drug premises charge.

[00:10:13] Speaker 00:
It was also admissible to show a ritualistic modus operandi whereby defendant distributed drugs during party and play.

[00:10:22] Speaker 00:
where he undressed his victims, he directed them to smoke or inject methamphetamine.

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
And there is a reasonable inference that if he has this very specific ritual, he is going to provide the drugs that were integral to that ritual.

[00:10:37] Speaker 00:
Some of these videos also showed that the defendant pushed his victims beyond their limits to take more drugs than they could possibly consume.

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
And that was circumstantial evidence that he provided fatal doses to Timothy Dean and Jamel Moore.

[00:10:53] Speaker 00:
Additionally, these videos refuted a centerpiece of the defendant's argument, which was that all of the government's witnesses were liars and manipulators.

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
This was essential to show corroboration

[00:11:05] Speaker 00:
of each of the victims' accounts who came into court.

[00:11:09] Speaker 00:
None of this was unfairly prejudicial or overkill, to use defendants' words.

[00:11:15] Speaker 00:
Without objection, the government played 12 short excerpts, each under three minutes, of videos that were just a tiny fraction of the thousands of party and play videos that were found on defendants' computer.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
I'd like to touch also on the confrontation clause question.

[00:11:36] Speaker 01:
Before you turn to that, can I ask you some factual questions about the search of the toolbox?

[00:11:45] Speaker 01:
And let's assume for purposes of these questions that the deputy is appropriately in the apartment because there was a call to respond to an emergency.

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
You agree that just being there wouldn't allow someone to search a closed container?

[00:12:02] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
She did not conduct a search, though.

[00:12:04] Speaker 00:
She saw them in plain view because the drawers were slightly ajar.

[00:12:08] Speaker 00:
And it was a Craftman toolbox.

[00:12:10] Speaker 01:
OK, that's what I was hoping for some factual explanation on.

[00:12:13] Speaker 01:
So I read her testimony.

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
But tell me why the notion that she could see something through the cracks in the toolbox troubled me.

[00:12:21] Speaker 01:
So help me with what she said.

[00:12:23] Speaker 01:
Help me what you think she actually saw.

[00:12:26] Speaker 00:
And, Your Honor, it might be helpful to actually look at a photograph of this toolbox, which is at 2 ER.

[00:12:32] Speaker 00:
482.

[00:12:33] Speaker 00:
And that shows you that there are cracks between each of the drawers such that if they were slightly ajar, you would be able to see what is at the front of the drawer.

[00:12:43] Speaker 01:
And I couldn't tell from the, maybe I just missed it.

[00:12:47] Speaker 01:
Was there testimony that this photo represented the way the toolbox was when the deputy came in there?

[00:12:54] Speaker 00:
She actually testified that the drawers were slightly more closed at the time of the photo than how she saw it, because people were moving through the apartment, knocking into it, addressing the overdose that was occurring in the living room.

[00:13:10] Speaker 01:
OK, I'm sorry.

[00:13:11] Speaker 01:
You want to deal with the confrontation process?

[00:13:13] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, unless the photo is really... The drawers were closed.

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
Yeah, photo really doesn't help me, because the photo looks like they're closed.

[00:13:20] Speaker 00:
And they look more closed in that one because it had been knocked around at that point.

[00:13:25] Speaker 00:
But you can see even in that photo that there are slivers between each of the drawers such that if they were open a tiny amount you would be able to see what's at the front of the drawers.

[00:13:35] Speaker 04:
Given the vantage point, I can't see anything from the slivers.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
And going to the credibility finding, as Your Honor pointed out in the last case that was before us, the district court is in the best position to make such credibility findings.

[00:13:49] Speaker 00:
And here, she made that finding regarding Deputy Baraz's testimony.

[00:13:54] Speaker 00:
She testified consistently.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
across her sworn declaration and in the evidentiary hearing that she saw that.

[00:14:00] Speaker 04:
Was there testimony on the record, I don't recall reading that, that the doors were actually open wider at the time that she viewed the evidence?

[00:14:09] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, that was testified to in the suppression hearing and she also said it in her sworn declaration, which is at 2ER 476.

[00:14:26] Speaker 00:
If there are no other questions about the suppression hearing, I can move to the confrontation clause.

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
Now, first considering the relevant of the proposed cross, we must look at what the defendant proffered.

[00:14:38] Speaker 00:
He wanted to attack Deputy Barraza's account that she saw these doors partially open.

[00:14:44] Speaker 00:
He repeatedly says that at 4ER.

[00:14:47] Speaker 00:
850 through 52, 55 through 56, and 61 through 62.

[00:14:52] Speaker 00:
And as Judge Snyder explained, how Deputy Barraza found this evidence was not relevant to the jury because she had already ruled that the evidence was admissible and the circumstances of the discovery were not probative of the, the, were not probative of

[00:15:09] Speaker 00:
this evidence.

[00:15:11] Speaker 00:
It was also irrelevant to her credibility because defendant couldn't proffer any discrepancy between her sworn testimony and her declaration.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
The judge even pointed out the defendant had mischaracterized the sequence of events because defendant kept pointing to an inconsistency in two reports.

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
But what actually happened was there was an original incident report written after the 911 response

[00:15:38] Speaker 00:
In July of 2017, it was written by a totally different deputy, and it said we observed narcotics evidence throughout the apartment.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
When the DA's office wanted clarity a year later, Deputy Barraza wrote her first and only report in this case in which she said that she found that evidence in plain view.

[00:15:57] Speaker 00:
That's at 4 ER 854.

[00:16:00] Speaker 00:
And she steadfastly said the same in her sworn declaration at 2 ER

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
476 and in her testimony at the suppression hearing.

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
When a defendant fails to show how a proposed line of questions undermines the officer's narrative and the questions merely cast doubt on the legality of the search, they have little bearing on the officer's credibility.

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
Again, help me again with what she said about the toolbox.

[00:16:28] Speaker 01:
At 2ER 475,

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
She says the drugs were in plain view in the kitchen, but she doesn't talk about the toolbox.

[00:16:40] Speaker 01:
At 476, does she talk about the toolbox?

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:50] Speaker 00:
At 477.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
Oh, the red tool chest.

[00:16:54] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
At 477.

[00:16:56] Speaker 01:
I noticed they were slightly open.

[00:16:58] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:16:59] Speaker 01:
okay so four seventy six is not four seventy six says he just saw drug evidence in plain view I apologize your honor that's the beginning of the declaration yes in her dad is actually two separate idea I got you now that's correct

[00:17:17] Speaker 00:
When the questioning only goes to the legality of the search and not the officer's overall credibility, it has little bearing on the officer's credibility as held in the Mastin decision.

[00:17:30] Speaker 00:
Finally, under the confrontation clause analysis, we have to look at whether the jury had sufficient evidence to assess the credibility of the officer.

[00:17:40] Speaker 00:
And here, they had plenty of information to assess it.

[00:17:44] Speaker 00:
The defendant was free to ask if the photos depicted the evidence as she saw it, the chain of custody, and whether she was directed to search.

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
The limitations on cross-examination were not so severe as to implicate

[00:18:00] Speaker 00:
confrontation clause, especially when the defendant cannot point to a single question that he didn't get to ask that would have exposed some pro-government bias.

[00:18:10] Speaker 00:
Additionally, any error would be harmless because, as Your Honor pointed out, she also saw drug evidence in the kitchen that was not challenged at the suppression hearing.

[00:18:20] Speaker 00:
And there was evidence from other victims that he kept drugs in this toolbox.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
There was also overwhelming evidence that he distributed these drugs to Jamal Moore, including, yes, Your Honor.

[00:18:34] Speaker 01:
Could you address, and I'm not sure it's, I'm not sure it would require reversal or it was plain error, but there's, it's disturbing that in the summation,

[00:18:45] Speaker 01:
The government said, we've only presented testimony from a small sample of his victims.

[00:18:53] Speaker 01:
Isn't that improper argument?

[00:18:55] Speaker 01:
no your honor this was not improper and it wasn't plain air because it was an accurate statement of the evidence the jury actually found suggests that there are other victims and and he wasn't charged with other victims so why why does the government get to argue that we vote we only we only put on evidence about a few victims not all

[00:19:17] Speaker 00:
Well, that's exactly the point, Your Honor.

[00:19:19] Speaker 00:
We did put on evidence of other victims.

[00:19:22] Speaker 00:
The jury saw evidence, including the videos of defendant pressuring non-testifying victims.

[00:19:28] Speaker 01:
So you think you're allowing the word testimony there as opposed to evidence?

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
The government said we only presented testimony from a small sample.

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
Heard testimony, yes, Your Honor.

[00:19:37] Speaker 00:
That was the statement heard.

[00:19:38] Speaker 01:
That was accurate, but they presented evidence, in your view, about more victims.

[00:19:42] Speaker 00:
correct your honor her testimony from just a small sample of the victims so this was an accurate statement of the evidence because the jury saw.

[00:19:52] Speaker 00:
evidence of non-testifying victims, including Markelius Jefferson, who was told to do another hit of methamphetamine, a video where another unidentified victim tells defendant, I don't know if I can do more, a text message where someone asks what happened to me when I was drugged and tied up.

[00:20:11] Speaker 00:
Defendant says a picture is worth a thousand words.

[00:20:14] Speaker 00:
That's at SCR 397.

[00:20:16] Speaker 04:
This referenced a testimony from a small sample of some of the defendants victims.

[00:20:21] Speaker 04:
Did it come up on rebuttal?

[00:20:23] Speaker 04:
The government's rebuttal?

[00:20:24] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor.

[00:20:25] Speaker 00:
Or opening closed?

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
This was in the opening closing.

[00:20:27] Speaker 01:
And no objection was made?

[00:20:28] Speaker 00:
No objection was made.

[00:20:29] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:20:31] Speaker 00:
And again, it was not an invitation to speculate because this was very much steeped in the evidence.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
And as the Henderson case holds, the government is permitted to strike hard blows when it is a reasonable inference from the evidence.

[00:20:44] Speaker 00:
I see my time has expired.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
If the court does not have any other questions.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
It's a tricky count up on our clock.

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
Do you have anything else?

[00:20:53] Speaker 04:
No, I don't.

[00:20:54] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:20:55] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much.

[00:21:01] Speaker 02:
With regard to Barazza, what's important to understand is that with regard to the first declaration, which was authored on December 4th of 2020, that was 1,227 days after the event were detected.

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
But the judge believed.

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
So are you saying that no reasonable judge anywhere could believe her?

[00:21:26] Speaker 01:
I mean, because that's your burden.

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
Your burden is to say that no reasonable judge could believe her.

[00:21:31] Speaker 02:
What I'm saying is that the credibility of Detective Barazza is severely at issue based upon when the police reports were written.

[00:21:40] Speaker 01:
I assume it's at issue.

[00:21:41] Speaker 01:
And I assume you had lots of reasons and good fodder for cross-examination, but the judge

[00:21:49] Speaker 02:
Concluded that she was telling the truth and I understand that and so don't you have to demonstrate to us that no reasonable judge could reach that conclusion Well judge having mentioned the fact that there should have been cross-examination and confrontation with regard to these issues We were precluded from doing that and so based not a discretionary

[00:22:09] Speaker 02:
not at the suppression hearing, but certainly during the course of the trial, issues with regard to the timeliness, the fact that there were no contemporaneous police reports written with regard to plain view, the fact that there were no photographs taken by Detective Barraza with regard to these items allegedly being found in plain view, the fact that there was a July 17, 2018

[00:22:31] Speaker 02:
a supplemental report in which there's nothing reported by Barraza with regard to anything other than methamphetamine.

[00:22:39] Speaker 02:
Later on, she says, much later on, she says, oh, by the way, I found a pipe, and I found small plastic baggies.

[00:22:47] Speaker 02:
Before, she said she found just one plastic baggie.

[00:22:50] Speaker 02:
There is a lot of information that should have come to the attention of the jury during the course of cross-examination.

[00:22:56] Speaker 01:
There are subsequent warrant.

[00:22:59] Speaker 02:
There was not.

[00:23:00] Speaker 02:
With regard to the apartment.

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
With regard to the Moore situation, they should have gotten a warrant.

[00:23:08] Speaker 02:
They did not.

[00:23:08] Speaker 02:
With regard to the Dean situation, they did seek a warrant for looking through the apartment.

[00:23:14] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:23:15] Speaker 01:
And now, so if there was a warrant subsequent to the Barraza

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
There was not.

[00:23:22] Speaker 02:
There was not.

[00:23:23] Speaker 02:
And that is, we're talking about Count 1, where Baraza allegedly found the drugs in plain view in the tool chest.

[00:23:31] Speaker 01:
So there was a warrant for search of the apartment prior to Baraza's entry?

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
There was not.

[00:23:37] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:23:37] Speaker 01:
Well, didn't you tell me there was a warrant issued?

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
I said with regard to the Timothy Dean scenario in Count 2.

[00:23:43] Speaker 01:
So my question is, since there was eventually a warrant issued,

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
for the apartment, why wouldn't what was in the tool chest been inevitably discovered?

[00:23:53] Speaker 02:
I think we're still not in agreement here.

[00:23:56] Speaker 02:
With regard to count one, which is the Jamel Moore count, which is the toolbox count, there was not a warrant requested or issued.

[00:24:07] Speaker 01:
I understand that.

[00:24:08] Speaker 01:
I understand that.

[00:24:09] Speaker 01:
There was a warrant, however, with respect to the other count, to the dean.

[00:24:12] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:24:13] Speaker 01:
And there was a search of the apartment.

[00:24:16] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:24:17] Speaker 01:
Wouldn't the search of the apartment inevitably have revealed what was in the toolbox?

[00:24:22] Speaker 02:
It would have inevitably revealed what was there.

[00:24:25] Speaker 02:
And so again, the issue becomes the credibility.

[00:24:28] Speaker 01:
There's no doubt that these drugs were there.

[00:24:30] Speaker 02:
They were there.

[00:24:31] Speaker 01:
So why doesn't the inevitable discovery doctrine apply here?

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
Well, it doesn't apply, because there was no criminality which was being alleged as to Mr. Moore.

[00:24:44] Speaker 02:
If you look at the various reports, as well as the coroner's reports, these reports indicate that these were not suspicious circumstances, that the death was based upon drug use, but not criminality.

[00:24:58] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:24:59] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:24:59] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much, counsel, on both sides for your argument.

[00:25:02] Speaker 04:
The matter is submitted.