[00:00:03] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:04] Speaker 04:
Tony Faramani on behalf of Mr. Royale.

[00:00:10] Speaker 04:
There's very little doubt, Your Honor, that what happened in this case should result in a grant of habeas relief.

[00:00:19] Speaker 04:
And that's quite simple, Your Honor, because we have a constitutional violation.

[00:00:23] Speaker 04:
We have the California Court of Appeal finding that the admission of that evidence not only was an error under the state law,

[00:00:31] Speaker 04:
But it was a manifest of injustice.

[00:00:33] Speaker 04:
That's the standard.

[00:00:35] Speaker 02:
Do we have a constitutional violation?

[00:00:36] Speaker 02:
We definitely have an evidentiary violation.

[00:00:39] Speaker 02:
Does it rise to the level of a constitutional violation?

[00:00:43] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, it does, we have cases, for example, Kipp versus Davis, a case from this circuit that talks about admission of evidence that renders a trial fundamentally unfair is a violation of due process.

[00:00:57] Speaker 04:
That's the claim that we have.

[00:00:58] Speaker 04:
It's the violation of his due process rights for the admission of that evidence, that improper admission of the evidence.

[00:01:05] Speaker 04:
And the California Court of Appeal found that under state law,

[00:01:08] Speaker 04:
It was improper admission of evidence, and the court abused its discretion.

[00:01:13] Speaker 00:
Did you raise the due process fundamental unfairness in California?

[00:01:17] Speaker 00:
I thought you had only raised the state evidentiary issue.

[00:01:22] Speaker 00:
You wanted the... And here's the Sixth Circuit claim.

[00:01:26] Speaker 04:
Sixth amendment claim not the due process yes, right I agree that the lawyer who handled a case at the direct appeal that lawyer did not squarely raise the issue the due process issue raised it in a way in a prejudice analysis by trying to persuade the California Court of Appeal that the

[00:01:47] Speaker 04:
standard on the Chapman should apply, because it is, in fact, a constitutional violation.

[00:01:52] Speaker 04:
But the California Court of Appeal found the California Court of Appeal, in fact, never addressed the constitutional violation.

[00:02:00] Speaker 04:
It looked at the issue.

[00:02:02] Speaker 00:
Sorry, when you're saying constitutional, now you're meaning due process.

[00:02:05] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor, due process.

[00:02:06] Speaker 04:
I agree with Your Honor.

[00:02:07] Speaker 00:
If they didn't address it because you didn't raise it, then isn't it not exhausted?

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
Well, Your Honor, well, two responses to that, Your Honor.

[00:02:18] Speaker 04:
He did raise a constitutional question.

[00:02:21] Speaker 04:
And the California Court of Appeal found that there was no constitutional violation.

[00:02:25] Speaker 04:
They did analyze it under the Sixth Amendment.

[00:02:28] Speaker 04:
You're correct, Your Honor.

[00:02:29] Speaker 04:
But they did find ultimately that this does not rise to a level of constitutional violation.

[00:02:34] Speaker 04:
The second response to that, Your Honor, would be that at no time during the proceedings in this court has anyone ever raised the issue of procedural default.

[00:02:42] Speaker 04:
Everyone has always assumed that the case, including the district court, District Judge Hayes,

[00:02:48] Speaker 04:
that the case is proceeding under the premise that this was a violation of your due process rights.

[00:02:57] Speaker 04:
The admission of that evidence was a violation of due process.

[00:03:00] Speaker 04:
And what the California courts have done is they analyzed the issue under state law and they never addressed the harmlessness standards.

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
They addressed it by using the Watson, people versus Watson rather than Chapman.

[00:03:14] Speaker 04:
So the California state courts are not even entitled to deference for that matter, Your Honor, because they never addressed the question before the court, which is a due process.

[00:03:24] Speaker 04:
And number two, the harmlessness that they did address.

[00:03:26] Speaker 02:
Are you saying that EDPA wouldn't apply?

[00:03:28] Speaker 04:
EDPA would not apply, Your Honor.

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
And the reason why it wouldn't apply, because they never adjudicated the issue.

[00:03:35] Speaker 04:
They did adjudicate harmlessness, but under a different standard, a much higher standard than Chapman, which we know is contrary to clearly established law.

[00:03:44] Speaker 04:
So cases after cases.

[00:03:46] Speaker 02:
How about on just the existence of the constitutional violation in the first place?

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
Is that governed by EDPA?

[00:03:52] Speaker 04:
It is in your honor because they find, they don't address the constitutional question.

[00:03:58] Speaker 04:
They say, we find no constitutional violation.

[00:04:01] Speaker 04:
So if they, in a way, you can say they addressed the Sixth Amendment question, Your Honor, and I think they're interrelated with one another.

[00:04:08] Speaker 04:
The way they were perceiving this case or the way they were analyzing it was there were so many different wrongs that happened in this case, including

[00:04:16] Speaker 04:
that this particular witness, Ellen, she never testified at the second trial.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
At the first trial, she did testify, and we had a hung jury, 93.

[00:04:26] Speaker 04:
Second trial, she doesn't testify at all.

[00:04:28] Speaker 04:
She demands money.

[00:04:30] Speaker 04:
She demands immunity.

[00:04:31] Speaker 04:
She doesn't get it.

[00:04:32] Speaker 04:
So she runs away.

[00:04:33] Speaker 04:
She doesn't testify.

[00:04:35] Speaker 04:
So the jury had a cold record, someone sitting up there and reading from the record.

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
What about, I mean, there was other, there were a bunch of claims here.

[00:04:42] Speaker 02:
Only one of them is before us.

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:04:45] Speaker 02:
So there's all this other evidence that would place You know that indicated that your client had committed the murder, so is this even?

[00:04:53] Speaker 02:
Material this issue that we're talking about absolutely on it because there was no evidence that put him at the scene there was none there was no forensic evidence on her other testimony right some of her testimony if you know you would Knock out through this theory, but not all of it what well her testimony the ones

[00:05:11] Speaker 04:
other than the improper admission of this evidence, all the other testimony that she gave, they were refuted by the father, the stepfather, and the mother.

[00:05:27] Speaker 04:
Basically, what she said was taking out the improper admission of that evidence, taking out the evidence that was improperly admitted, and just focusing on what she said, she says that

[00:05:37] Speaker 04:
He came into the car and he said he murdered someone.

[00:05:40] Speaker 04:
Well, there are two people sitting in that car.

[00:05:42] Speaker 04:
And those two people testified, the mom and the stepfather.

[00:05:46] Speaker 04:
And they both denied it.

[00:05:47] Speaker 04:
And they were very credible witnesses, Your Honor.

[00:05:50] Speaker 04:
Sure, there was some testimony that they had maybe misrepresented some of the facts when they were first interviewed by the police.

[00:05:57] Speaker 04:
But they had legitimate reason for that.

[00:05:59] Speaker 01:
What about the cell phone evidence and the shotgun shells?

[00:06:03] Speaker 04:
Your honor, the cell phone evidence, there was no evidence that put the cell phone in my client's hands, your honor, in a panelist's hands, none whatsoever.

[00:06:14] Speaker 04:
So the cell phone could have been carried by just anyone.

[00:06:16] Speaker 04:
It could have been carried by the LN, by the offending witness here.

[00:06:26] Speaker 04:
So the cell phone does not put my phone.

[00:06:29] Speaker 01:
Wasn't the cell phone though, I'm trying to remember the exact set of calls though, but the cell phone was calling the victim, but wasn't the cell phone also calling your client's family members?

[00:06:40] Speaker 01:
Or other people who wouldn't really make sense for it to be anyone else?

[00:06:45] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor, because what happened was there were contacts between the victim

[00:06:51] Speaker 04:
and the cell phone that belonged to my client.

[00:06:55] Speaker 04:
But we don't know who was actually talking on that cell phone.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
That cell phone was... But I'm just saying, weren't there other calls interspersed to people who it would have made sense for it to be your client?

[00:07:05] Speaker 04:
Afterwards, Your Honor, there was another set of calls that were made to the home after the killing.

[00:07:13] Speaker 04:
So at that time, again, it would make sense for her to have been making those phone calls as well.

[00:07:20] Speaker 04:
Because what she does, and this was brought out in my client's testimony, she says that he called the house, talked to the mom, and then there was subsequent phone calls back and forth between the same lines, a different line.

[00:07:34] Speaker 04:
There were two lines in that house, Your Honor, one belonging to Ellen and the other one belonging to the parents.

[00:07:40] Speaker 04:
And all those phone calls could have been made by Ellen.

[00:07:44] Speaker 04:
There's no indication that they had to have been made.

[00:07:49] Speaker 04:
by by my client and in fact Mr. Royale.

[00:07:51] Speaker 02:
Is there any evidence that Ellen made the calls?

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
I mean this or is this a theory but what would support that?

[00:07:57] Speaker 04:
Well it was supported on it because the the

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
The calls after the murder you honor is that there is that are those the calls you referencing frankly any of the calls I mean if your position is that Ellen might have made the calls I guess on the theory that what she was paid to have sex with the victim and there was a That would be the alternative she was setting it up.

[00:08:17] Speaker 04:
Yeah, she was setting it up This that's what she did so since she was setting it up, and this was a younger

[00:08:22] Speaker 04:
The gentleman, the victim, he was sort of a womanizer, if you will, so he did date multiple women.

[00:08:30] Speaker 04:
So it is quite plausible, Your Honor, that those phone calls could have been made.

[00:08:35] Speaker 04:
By by Ellen to set up these are evidence that would support that I mean there is no evidence one way or another you honor There is no evidence that my client picked up the phone and called and there's no evidence that she didn't so we don't know where and the prosecutor or the California Court of Appeal does not rely on

[00:08:55] Speaker 04:
on the phone calls at all, because they know they can't put the phone in Mr. Royale's hands.

[00:09:02] Speaker 04:
And there is no evidence whatsoever at the scene of the crime that would tie him to the actual scene.

[00:09:07] Speaker 04:
None.

[00:09:08] Speaker 04:
None whatsoever, Your Honor.

[00:09:09] Speaker 04:
So it could have been anybody at that scene.

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
What we do know is that there were three women in a car at the crime scene at the time of the murder.

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
Well, we know that Mr. Royale was nowhere near there except for the cell phone, which admittedly, Your Honor, the number did belong to him.

[00:09:27] Speaker 04:
But we have evidence that that cell phone was being used not just by him, by her as well, and multiple other people because of the business he was in, which was printing business.

[00:09:37] Speaker 04:
And he would make cold calls to get clients in.

[00:09:42] Speaker 02:
I thought he was also in the business of

[00:09:44] Speaker 02:
Dealing drugs or being an intermediary for drug dealing?

[00:09:47] Speaker 04:
He wasn't.

[00:09:48] Speaker 04:
The victim was.

[00:09:48] Speaker 04:
Yeah, but he was more of a woman.

[00:09:53] Speaker 04:
He would... I was as a pimp, which he admitted, I tried, Your Honor.

[00:09:58] Speaker 04:
And he did testify at the first trial as well, and the only person who didn't testify was Ellen, whose testimony came in, whose testimony was uncross-examined, Your Honor, to the cops, to the police, during interrogation, no indication of reliability whatsoever they came in.

[00:10:17] Speaker 02:
Okay, we've taken you over your time, but let's put two minutes on the clock for some additional time.

[00:10:21] Speaker 02:
I appreciate that, Your Honor.

[00:10:22] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:10:31] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court, Christopher Beasley, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of the respondent.

[00:10:36] Speaker 03:
I'd like to start where Judge Boggs turned at the very beginning with the question of, is this even an exhausted claim if we're going down the rubric of due process?

[00:10:46] Speaker 03:
And the answer is no.

[00:10:48] Speaker 03:
It is not an exhausted claim if we're talking under the rubric of due process.

[00:10:51] Speaker 03:
The way that this claim was presented at all times in the California Court of Appeal,

[00:10:57] Speaker 03:
in the Supreme Court of California for the petition for review, and even framed in the district court was as a confrontation clause violation under the Sixth Amendment.

[00:11:07] Speaker 03:
So to flip it over in this court to a due process violation really is not the same claim, and it is unexhausted.

[00:11:16] Speaker 02:
How different is it really?

[00:11:17] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's the same evidence.

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
theory of unfairness under the Constitution?

[00:11:22] Speaker 03:
In some ways that's correct, but confrontation, the whole idea with confrontation is the ability to cross-examine the witness that is there and to confront that person.

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
And that was actually vindicated in this case because as the Court of Appeal, the State Court of Appeal found, this witness was fully cross-examined

[00:11:41] Speaker 03:
in the first trial.

[00:11:42] Speaker 03:
Her credibility was tested, her biases were tested, her lack of recall was tested.

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
That was all of the things that confrontation is all about, and to protect and vindicate, that was present in the first trial.

[00:11:53] Speaker 03:
And so the confrontation clause violation doesn't exist here.

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
Turning to due process, setting that aside, just setting aside that fine, we'll accept that due process is similar enough.

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
to a confrontation clause violation.

[00:12:07] Speaker 03:
We still don't have here that violation of the Constitution that rises to the level of a fundamental unfairness.

[00:12:15] Speaker 03:
Jamal v. Van Camp is really on point in this case.

[00:12:18] Speaker 03:
This is a case out of this court back from 1990s.

[00:12:23] Speaker 03:
And in that case, the state court of appeal found that there was a state evidentiary law violation with the admission of a whole cache of money in the trunk of the defendant.

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
It was a drug case.

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
And this evidence shouldn't have come in because there was nothing really tying that money to the drugs.

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
So the California state court of appeal found that this was irrelevant and was inadmissible.

[00:12:48] Speaker 03:
This court then had to determine, does that rise to the level of a constitutional violation?

[00:12:54] Speaker 03:
And this court said, presence or absence of a state law violation is largely besides the point when addressing whether there's been a constitutional violation.

[00:13:03] Speaker 03:
And went on to find that there was no fundamental unfairness.

[00:13:07] Speaker 03:
There were in fact some reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the money that was found in the trunk.

[00:13:13] Speaker 03:
because the defendant was a known drug dealer.

[00:13:15] Speaker 02:
What is your position on whether EDPA applies to any or all of this?

[00:13:20] Speaker 03:
EDPA absolutely applies to all of this.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
Absolutely applies.

[00:13:23] Speaker 03:
The question really before this court is was the California Court of Appeals conclusion that there was no constitutional violation contrary to or based upon an unreasonable application

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
of clearly established US Supreme Court authority.

[00:13:38] Speaker 01:
So in making that argument, are you just assuming that the confrontation clause and the due process are the same?

[00:13:44] Speaker 01:
I mean, you started your argument by saying this isn't exhaustive, but now you're saying they did answer it.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
Right, right.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
So what I'm saying is, even if we were to set aside, I'm not saying that they're the same.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
I'm saying that the actual claim was confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
That's the claim that is exhausted.

[00:13:59] Speaker 03:
That was what was presented.

[00:14:01] Speaker 03:
That right has been vindicated.

[00:14:02] Speaker 03:
But even if we were to set it aside and assume for the purpose of this secondary argument that I'm making, that's what I'm saying.

[00:14:08] Speaker 03:
I'm setting that aside and making the assumption that, fine, the due process claim is exhausted.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
Even that would be subject to EDPA.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
Because if we're talking in global terms, this is constitutional.

[00:14:20] Speaker 03:
We use vague language here instead of very specific and precise language.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
The California Court of Appeal addressed the constitutionality.

[00:14:27] Speaker 03:
And it would have recognized, okay, fine, it's a confrontation clause violation.

[00:14:31] Speaker 03:
If he's talking constitutionally in broader terms, then also there's no due process violation here.

[00:14:36] Speaker 03:
We could make that assumption, but that's not how it was framed.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
And so that's why I'm trying to delineate it with what was actually presented to the California State Court of Appeal and then what he's now arguing here.

[00:14:47] Speaker 03:
So I'm saying if we assume

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
that the confrontation is its own separate thing and then due process is its own separate thing and assume that it was exhausted, we still are okay here.

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure what to make of the fact that you haven't really argued previously that this wasn't exhausted.

[00:15:03] Speaker 03:
Yeah, that is actually my fault.

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
I should have been much more clear in my brief about that.

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
I just proceeded down the path of looking at what the court of appeals, state court of appeals, did addressing the confrontation issue.

[00:15:16] Speaker 03:
and went with that.

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
I should have been more explicit in saying, yes, this is the only claim before the court.

[00:15:24] Speaker 03:
So that is my fault.

[00:15:24] Speaker 03:
I should have briefed it more clearly.

[00:15:27] Speaker 02:
On the issue of essentially prejudice or harmlessness, why don't you give us the state's position on that issue?

[00:15:35] Speaker 03:
Once again, the royal has failed to demonstrate to the court that this error of state law, which

[00:15:44] Speaker 03:
would have to assume that it's a constitutional violation, had a substantial and injurious effect upon the verdict.

[00:15:48] Speaker 03:
And the reason for that is because there was, as Your Honor has already pointed out, lots of other evidence that was presented on this record.

[00:15:56] Speaker 03:
There was evidence from Ellen herself that was perfectly admissible, where she said that she remembered the defendant arming himself with a shotgun.

[00:16:05] Speaker 03:
She recalled that he had called her up from a grocery store and asked her to pick him up from the grocery store.

[00:16:13] Speaker 03:
on the night of the murder, and then she recalled that he had told her that he had shot someone.

[00:16:18] Speaker 03:
This on top of the evidence from the cell phones, that the victim and the defendant had been talking to each other throughout the day, and then cell phone records showed that those two cell phones were moving closer and closer together and were within the same vicinity of each other at the time of the murder.

[00:16:35] Speaker 03:
So all of this evidence taken together

[00:16:38] Speaker 03:
would have gotten the jury to the same verdict.

[00:16:42] Speaker 03:
So this evidence that should have been excluded under state law, that evidence wouldn't have made any sort of difference in light of what we had here.

[00:16:49] Speaker 01:
And what is your response to the argument that L.N.

[00:16:52] Speaker 01:
actually had this cell phone?

[00:16:54] Speaker 03:
There's no evidence of that.

[00:16:55] Speaker 03:
That's just pure speculation.

[00:16:57] Speaker 03:
And speculation is clearly not enough.

[00:17:00] Speaker 03:
I also would add that this trial, although L.N.

[00:17:05] Speaker 03:
was not present to testify,

[00:17:07] Speaker 03:
All of the witnesses were the same.

[00:17:08] Speaker 03:
There was additional evidence in this trial to help Royal.

[00:17:13] Speaker 03:
The fact that L.N.

[00:17:14] Speaker 03:
refused to come and testify was blatantly before the jury.

[00:17:18] Speaker 03:
But then the various demands that she had made of the prosecution to come and testify, to try to extort $15,000 from the prosecution to testify, asking for immunity from prosecution, those kinds of things were all in front of the jury as well as additional evidence to help impeach L.N.

[00:17:37] Speaker 03:
That evidence was never in front of the jury in the first trial.

[00:17:40] Speaker 03:
So this trial was, the second trial actually had evidence that was even more helpful.

[00:17:44] Speaker 02:
Was there any other witness who testified about whether Royall had committed the murder?

[00:17:51] Speaker 02:
Affirmatively testified, so you had L.N.

[00:17:53] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:17:54] Speaker 03:
Was there anybody else?

[00:17:55] Speaker 03:
I don't think there was anyone else, but you also have the shotgun that was found in the car of, in Royall's car.

[00:18:04] Speaker 03:
that matched the same gauge and the same brand of the shotgun that was found.

[00:18:08] Speaker 03:
So it's a common shotgun?

[00:18:10] Speaker 03:
It is a common shotgun.

[00:18:11] Speaker 03:
However, it's a shotgun shell.

[00:18:13] Speaker 03:
However, the fact that the exact same gauge, the exact same brand, all those similarities, that raises a permissible inference that it was him.

[00:18:25] Speaker 02:
And the other witnesses, your opposing counsel was explaining, testified essentially that no, he had denied the shooting.

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
He testified and denied the shooting.

[00:18:37] Speaker 03:
His theory was that Ellen had done it.

[00:18:39] Speaker 03:
His theory was the other person did it.

[00:18:42] Speaker 03:
And so that's what he presented to the jury.

[00:18:43] Speaker 03:
The jury heard all of this.

[00:18:45] Speaker 03:
And the jury was able to make its own determination based upon the evidence that was there.

[00:18:52] Speaker 03:
So with that, I would ask this court to affirm the judgment of the district court, recognizing that there really was no constitutional violation here.

[00:18:59] Speaker 03:
Even if there were it had no substantial and injurious effect upon the verdict and with that I submit Thank you very much.

[00:19:06] Speaker 04:
Thank you If I may you honor I just want to respond to Judge Freeland's question about the shotgun shells you know those were those shotgun shells that were found in the car were actually admitted by NL Ellen to belong to her and

[00:19:26] Speaker 04:
That's part of the police report.

[00:19:28] Speaker 04:
That's part of the record.

[00:19:30] Speaker 04:
And so that's with shotgun shells.

[00:19:33] Speaker 04:
And I didn't want to highlight, again, you want to... Was that presented to the jury?

[00:19:38] Speaker 04:
It was not presented to the jury.

[00:19:39] Speaker 04:
That's one of his claims that the defense counsel failed to present that to the jury.

[00:19:43] Speaker 04:
But she does admit, so when she gets pulled over in Arizona, she admits those shotgun shells are mine.

[00:19:49] Speaker 01:
I wasn't that presented to the jury?

[00:19:51] Speaker 01:
Sorry, I'm a little confused about this.

[00:19:53] Speaker 01:
How do we know that and why wasn't it presented to the jury?

[00:19:58] Speaker 04:
It wasn't presented to the jury, Your Honor, because one of his claims is actually grounded on ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to bring that to the jury's attention.

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
So that wasn't a certified claim, but that's part of the record because the police report

[00:20:11] Speaker 04:
And it's indicated in the police report that she takes responsibility for the shotgun shells.

[00:20:17] Speaker 04:
But wholly aside from that, Your Honor, as Your Honor pointed out, those shotgun shells could have been from anywhere.

[00:20:26] Speaker 04:
There were very common shotgun shells.

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
So it wasn't something where it was very very direct and very precise and your honor I do want to highlight I mean this is very important because the California Court of Appeal when finding that this was a state of an entry error says that this is the standard that they had to meet the mr.. Royale had to meet it says

[00:20:52] Speaker 04:
Arbitrary, capricious, patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.

[00:20:59] Speaker 04:
That's precisely what he did in the California Court of Appeal.

[00:21:02] Speaker 04:
That's the standard he overcame for that state evidentiary error, for the court to find that, to be able to find that there was a state evidentiary error.

[00:21:12] Speaker 00:
Counsel, just to clarify the thing that you said about her claiming the shotgun shells.

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
That's what she said, what, weeks or months later when she and Royall together are stopped in Arizona?

[00:21:26] Speaker 04:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
OK, and that's what she tells the Arizona police?

[00:21:30] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:21:31] Speaker 04:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:21:33] Speaker 00:
When she's with Royall?

[00:21:34] Speaker 04:
And the testimony about her wanting immunity and all that, yes, they came in.

[00:21:40] Speaker 04:
But they also came in, they had an expert who came in and said, people who are sexually exploited for money, they usually have lack of memory, and they have fear of their pimp, if you will.

[00:21:57] Speaker 04:
So that was rebutted.

[00:21:58] Speaker 04:
That testimony was not as compelling, the lawyer coming in.

[00:22:03] Speaker 02:
Okay, thank you very much for your presentation.

[00:22:05] Speaker 02:
We thank both counsel for their helpful briefing and arguments.

[00:22:08] Speaker 02:
This matter is submitted.

[00:22:09] Speaker 02:
Thank you