[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
Good afternoon.

[00:00:02] Speaker 01:
I'm John Rhodes from the Missoula Office of the Federal Defenders of Montana.

[00:00:07] Speaker 01:
With me at council table is Marla Prothrow.

[00:00:10] Speaker 01:
She's a third year law student at the University of Montana School of Law.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
She's with me on the briefs representing Mr. Coons.

[00:00:18] Speaker 01:
I would like to reserve two minutes for a rebuttal.

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
Relying on hearsay in revocation proceedings violates due process unless the government's good cause for denying it outweighs Mr. Kuntz's right to confront the hearsay.

[00:00:34] Speaker 02:
Well let's start there counsel.

[00:00:36] Speaker 02:
In United States versus Martin there the defendant was denied virtually any opportunity but here that was not the case right.

[00:00:45] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:00:46] Speaker 01:
Mr. Koontz was denied the opportunity to confront the sweat patches at every turn.

[00:00:51] Speaker 02:
Well, but didn't he have an opportunity?

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
I think the language of Martin is pretty broad, wouldn't you agree?

[00:00:57] Speaker 02:
I mean, it says that in that case, there was virtually no opportunity.

[00:01:02] Speaker 02:
And here, Mr. Koontz had the opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, a probation officer, present

[00:01:12] Speaker 02:
other pieces of evidence, why isn't that enough?

[00:01:16] Speaker 01:
Martin did use the word virtually.

[00:01:19] Speaker 01:
Here, the reason it wasn't enough is because under the Camito balancing test, the district court exclusively relied on the sweat patches when it announced its ruling.

[00:01:31] Speaker 01:
And that's what the government argued.

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
The government exclusively relied on the sweat patches in arguing to the district court.

[00:01:40] Speaker 03:
Council, I understand from the record that your client did ask for an opportunity to retest the patches and was denied.

[00:01:49] Speaker 03:
Was that request renewed at all before the district court judge?

[00:01:52] Speaker 01:
No, the way revocation works, at least in Montana, it's very quick.

[00:01:58] Speaker 01:
The initial appearance was March 27.

[00:02:01] Speaker 01:
I believe the final revocation hearing was April 16.

[00:02:04] Speaker 01:
But Mr. Koontz, when he learned of the positive sweat patch, he asked for retesting.

[00:02:10] Speaker 01:
He asked for urinalysis.

[00:02:12] Speaker 01:
He asked for daily urinalysis.

[00:02:15] Speaker 01:
He asked to take a polygraph.

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
He asked his probation office everything he could think of

[00:02:22] Speaker 01:
And then, after he was arrested on the violation petition, that's when, well actually it was before that, he did the hair follicle test, and then that's when he was polygraphed.

[00:02:33] Speaker 01:
And that gets back to Judge Mendoza's question about our ability to confront the sweat patches.

[00:02:40] Speaker 01:
The evidence that we offer, the polygraph test and the hair follicle test, both negative, in other words supporting Mr. Koontz,

[00:02:49] Speaker 01:
the district court referred to those tests as meaningless.

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
Again, the court exclusively relied on the sweat patches in explaining its ruling.

[00:03:00] Speaker 03:
I just want to clarify, you're challenging both the lack of opportunity essentially to confront the lab technicians, let's say who actually conducted the sweat patch tests.

[00:03:13] Speaker 03:
Are you also confronting the use of the hearsay from the toxicologist or the administrator who

[00:03:18] Speaker 03:
essentially opined on how to interpret those tests or whether they could be possibly consistent with anything but current use?

[00:03:26] Speaker 01:
Absolutely.

[00:03:26] Speaker 01:
The probation office, and this was unbeknownst to us until the hearing, she spoke to the lab, asked the question she wanted to ask.

[00:03:36] Speaker 01:
And then when I tried to confront the probation officer to ask questions that I would ask a toxicologist, she was candid.

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
She said, I'm not a lab technician.

[00:03:45] Speaker 01:
I was focusing on perhaps historic cocaine use somehow excreting at a later time She couldn't answer that there were if you look at the lab reports, there's descending nanograms I think it started with 44 and it got down to something like 16 nanograms 10 nanograms the cutoff for positive and there were alternating positive sweat patch negative sweat patch positive negative positive negative

[00:04:14] Speaker 01:
There was no way for us to question any of that evidence because she wasn't in a position to answer it.

[00:04:21] Speaker 00:
Did the government give any reason for the unavailability of the lab checks?

[00:04:27] Speaker 00:
Were they required to give any reason, and does that matter to our analysis here?

[00:04:31] Speaker 01:
It definitely matters under what the court sometimes called the Camito balancing test you have to weigh the significance of the Unconfrontable hearsay here the sweat patch test results and then the probation's officers testimony and the district courts reference to experts in other cases

[00:04:50] Speaker 01:
Against the government's good cause for denying here.

[00:04:55] Speaker 01:
The government offered nothing and in Camito.

[00:04:58] Speaker 01:
They said that means there's nothing to put on that side of the scale.

[00:05:02] Speaker 01:
I've litigated the sweat patch in many cases for at least a decade.

[00:05:07] Speaker 01:
Frequently, the government has a toxicologist not somebody from the lab report, but a Stanford toxicologist testify about the sweat patch.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
He actually is a consultant with Farm Chem, the company that manufactures the sweat patch.

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
So he testifies via video.

[00:05:26] Speaker 01:
Right to confrontation is permitted.

[00:05:29] Speaker 02:
There is there an affidavit or something that was provided.

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
Nothing.

[00:05:33] Speaker 01:
That's my next point.

[00:05:35] Speaker 01:
Unlike Sixth Amendment confrontation at trial where the Supreme Court's made clear in the Crawford line of cases culminating most recently with Arizona v. Smith.

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
There you can't rely on affidavits.

[00:05:48] Speaker 01:
You've got to have a live witness in the revocation process in the court's case law.

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
It's recognized that affidavits could be sufficient and I can think of one case I had with a positive THC marijuana sweat patches.

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
That's exactly what the prosecution did.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
But here there was nothing.

[00:06:06] Speaker 03:
With that have an affidavit have been sufficient in this case, though.

[00:06:09] Speaker 03:
I mean, if, for example, the talks colleges Apparently the hearsay part of the hearsay testimony is I think the PO officer asked essentially, you know, Could this be consistent with past use versus current use?

[00:06:23] Speaker 03:
And the answer was no, I mean,

[00:06:25] Speaker 03:
I assume you would have asked other questions to probe that answer.

[00:06:31] Speaker 03:
I think that's part of what the issue is here.

[00:06:34] Speaker 03:
Would you have had the opportunity to do that if they had just submitted an affidavit?

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
I would hope the affidavit would be comprehensive enough to get ahead of the questions I would ask in this instance, the question that you just posed was not asked by the probation officer.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
That's what I tried to ask her and she simply couldn't answer it.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
What she asked about was environmental contamination.

[00:06:57] Speaker ?:
Okay.

[00:06:57] Speaker 03:
Thank you for refreshing my memory.

[00:06:59] Speaker 03:
And is there anything in the record?

[00:07:01] Speaker 03:
You mentioned that you had an exchange with the PO about asking additional questions.

[00:07:06] Speaker 03:
Is that in the record?

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

[00:07:10] Speaker 01:
I believe it's ER44.

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
But it would be during my cross-examination.

[00:07:15] Speaker 01:
And I started to ask her questions.

[00:07:18] Speaker 01:
And again, she was candid.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
She said, I'm not a lab technician.

[00:07:22] Speaker 03:
So you were asking the PO, when they were on the scan, how to explain these other things.

[00:07:27] Speaker 03:
And they said they're not a toxicologist, versus asking for the opportunity to ask the toxicologist directly.

[00:07:34] Speaker 03:
Did you ever?

[00:07:36] Speaker 03:
Is there anything in the record about that.

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
No, I tried to ask the probation officer about historic cocaine use, in other words, in the past, somehow excreting in the present.

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
And she couldn't answer that.

[00:07:50] Speaker 01:
I was going to ask about these alternating positive and negative tests, but she had already said, I'm not a lab technician.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
I was going to ask about the nanograms that were reported because it went from 44 to 20.8

[00:08:04] Speaker 01:
The 13 nanograms again with negatives in there.

[00:08:08] Speaker 01:
I was going to ask about that descending nanograms, but she made it clear.

[00:08:13] Speaker 01:
She couldn't answer that.

[00:08:14] Speaker 03:
So are you representing this?

[00:08:15] Speaker 03:
These are the types of questions you would have asked if they had actually put a toxicologist on the scene.

[00:08:21] Speaker 01:
Most definitely.

[00:08:22] Speaker 01:
And I also asked her about how much cocaine use in terms of ingested cocaine would correlate to these nanogram readings.

[00:08:31] Speaker 01:
And she was unable to do that.

[00:08:33] Speaker 00:
I see it here on ER 46.

[00:08:35] Speaker 01:
Yes, yes, that's what she says I do not I'm not a lab technician and I in one case and when I get up on rebuttal I can cited to the court or do a 28 J follow-up I beat the sweat patch in one case where the toxicologist testify in basically it was a very low methamphetamine nanogram reading.

[00:08:55] Speaker 01:
And he said that would correlate to this much ingested methamphetamine.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
My client, fortunately recovering addict, but he's an addict.

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
He got up and testified, I'm an addict.

[00:09:06] Speaker 01:
I'm not going to use that little bit of methamphetamine.

[00:09:09] Speaker 01:
If I'm going in, I'm going all in.

[00:09:12] Speaker 01:
And those are simply the kind of questions that we weren't permitted to ask.

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
I see I've got less than a minute, so I'll reserve for rebuttal.

[00:09:20] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
Good afternoon your honors may have pleased the court Kelsey Sable from the district of Montana on behalf of the United States under the commuter balancing test that applies the district court correctly admitted the lab reports and the testimony of the district court did not do a commuter balancing test though correct

[00:09:51] Speaker 04:
It's true that the district court did not expressly conduct the balancing test.

[00:09:56] Speaker 02:
Well, not expressly, they specifically didn't.

[00:09:58] Speaker 04:
Did not conduct the balancing test, Your Honor, that's true.

[00:10:01] Speaker 04:
But now we're here on de novo review, and so now this court can conduct the balancing test and consider the factors such as the defendant.

[00:10:08] Speaker 00:
I don't see how we can conduct the test when the government did not offer

[00:10:13] Speaker 00:
in the trial court any good cause for not producing the technicians?

[00:10:18] Speaker 00:
I mean, that's the question that I'm really struggling with is what is on that side of the balancing test?

[00:10:25] Speaker 00:
What's the good cause?

[00:10:27] Speaker 00:
I mean, there was no evidence of that.

[00:10:29] Speaker 04:
Yes, your honor.

[00:10:30] Speaker 04:
We did not present any evidence in the district court.

[00:10:33] Speaker 04:
That's absolutely correct.

[00:10:34] Speaker 04:
But it is clear from the record before this court that these testing chemists were out of state.

[00:10:40] Speaker 04:
The lab reports themselves at excerpts of the record 141 through 147 say Kansas on them.

[00:10:46] Speaker 04:
So it's clear that these witnesses would be traveling to Montana from out of state to testify.

[00:10:50] Speaker 04:
It's clear from the lab reports, the identifiers referencing the testing chemists, that there would be multiple witnesses that would need to testify to the positive.

[00:11:02] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:11:02] Speaker 04:
Go ahead.

[00:11:03] Speaker 04:
I was going to say, wouldn't remote appearance be an option?

[00:11:07] Speaker 04:
Remote appearance would be an option, Your Honor, but I don't think that necessarily solves all of the difficulty and expense and resource allocation with calling these- But none of that was presented to the district court, right?

[00:11:19] Speaker 04:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
It was not presented to the district court, but- So we have to sort of glean that that's what we're thinking.

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
Well, I think the district court did reference, and it's at excerpts of the record, ER 129, that he has, you know, been a district court judge for a long time.

[00:11:33] Speaker 02:
He's presided over a lot of these... On this point, though, I guess I have a question.

[00:11:38] Speaker 02:
I think the district court did say he has indicated that he has experienced in over 500 cases in other hearings and that therefore believes that these tests are inherently reliable.

[00:11:48] Speaker 02:
How is anyone who's

[00:11:50] Speaker 02:
standing before that judge, able to challenge that kind of evidence, extra evidence that they don't have the ability to confront.

[00:12:01] Speaker 02:
How is anyone supposed to do that?

[00:12:03] Speaker 04:
Well, so I think, Your Honor, in the context of this case, it's important to sort of remember the nature of Mr. Kuntz's challenge to the sweat patch tests.

[00:12:13] Speaker 04:
And Mr. Kuntz did not challenge the fact that the sweat patches were positive.

[00:12:18] Speaker 04:
That is not the argument that he advanced before the district court.

[00:12:22] Speaker 04:
He said positive sweat patches do not equal cocaine use.

[00:12:26] Speaker 04:
And the reason for that was this

[00:12:28] Speaker 04:
argument that it was sort of residual stored cocaine that was excreted through his body.

[00:12:32] Speaker 04:
So the inherent reliability of the sweat patches, you know, aren't really central to this argument.

[00:12:39] Speaker 04:
I mean, I think the discussion, you know, with my colleague was really illuminating as to this point.

[00:12:44] Speaker 04:
The type of questions that he would be asking a witness, a toxicologist or someone else,

[00:12:50] Speaker 04:
Those are not questions to ask the testing chemist who received this sample and tested it and said, yes, it's positive.

[00:12:56] Speaker 03:
But that's not the only person that is missing from this, right?

[00:13:00] Speaker 03:
So the PO testified to an email exchange they had with a toxicologist and an explanation for whether there's any other essentially

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
potential explanation other than ingestion as a cause of a positive test.

[00:13:16] Speaker 03:
It seems to me that is also significant hearsay that's relevant to the defense's theory, which is that there's some other possible explanation for the positive test, in the intermittent nature and the levels detected, you know, that there could be

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
some other explanation, and to the extent that there was hearsay testimony about an email exchange with a toxicologist that said, you know, the only explanation essentially is ingestion, that that should have been subject to cross-examination.

[00:13:49] Speaker 04:
Well, so, I think, Your Honor, two points on that.

[00:13:52] Speaker 04:
You know, firstly, the probation officer did not testify specifically to a conversation about Mr. Kutz's defense, the residual excretion defense.

[00:14:00] Speaker 04:
You know, but more importantly, Your Honor, I think that goes to the factor that was discussed at length in Martin, which is a different—or an ability to refute the evidence in another way.

[00:14:12] Speaker 04:
And so Mr. Kuntz, you know, absolutely could have presented evidence of his residual excretion theory through his own witness.

[00:14:20] Speaker 04:
I mean, there is no magic to cross-examining the, you know, the testing chemists or the operations manager at the lab or whomever the probation officer spoke to.

[00:14:29] Speaker 04:
I mean, he could subpoena his own toxicologist, his own expert witness, to opine on these issues about the nanograms and the levels, and what does it mean when positive tests are interspersed with negative tests, and is this residual excretion positive, and would that result in positive and negative tests repeating?

[00:14:47] Speaker 02:
How long this could have been avoided had there been an affidavit, had there been virtual testimony, had there been any of that which was not provided to the district court, correct?

[00:14:56] Speaker 04:
I don't agree with that, respectfully, Your Honor, because I think the affidavit wouldn't really solve the confrontation issue that has been raised.

[00:15:03] Speaker 04:
I mean, if we were to submit an affidavit, we would—you know, the violation is use of cocaine.

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
And we prove that in part.

[00:15:11] Speaker 04:
Through the sweat patch tests and so we would introduce affidavits from the testing chemists and the affidavits would say Essentially what the lab reports say I received this sample on this date I tested it it tested positive and then we would rely on that and all of the other You know evidence supporting that the drug paraphernalia found and those other types of things

[00:15:32] Speaker 04:
But we didn't know, I don't believe, that there was this residual excretion argument until the revocation hearing.

[00:15:40] Speaker 04:
And so an affidavit wouldn't speak to that, and an affidavit wouldn't provide that information relevant to that defense.

[00:15:48] Speaker 04:
And so I don't believe that an affidavit would serve the confrontation issue in this case.

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
Can you point me to any cases where the government has

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
failed to offer any any good cause for not producing witnesses and still succeeded under the commuter balancing test or do you have any cases i'm not aware of any your honor you know i do know that the district court um you know did not conduct the commuter balancing test in commuter and hall and of course the government did not prevail in those cases but i think those cases are

[00:16:22] Speaker 04:
significantly distinguishable in a way that's very important to this case.

[00:16:26] Speaker 04:
And I say that because both of those cases where the defendant's interest outweighed the government's good cause was those cases involved, you know, unsworn verbal statements from third parties, sort of interested third parties who had some sort of personal interest or involvement in this case.

[00:16:43] Speaker 04:
And under those circumstances, you know, this court held that the defendant's interest in confronting those witnesses outweighed the government's good cause.

[00:16:50] Speaker 04:
And that makes sense, because when you have a witness who's saying, you know, like in Camito, the witness saying, he used my credit cards without permission, and the defendant saying, no, I had permission, there's a real interest in getting these witnesses before the district court and allowing him to listen to their testimony and judge their credibility and make that determination.

[00:17:08] Speaker 04:
You know, but in this case, you know, we have the good cause and the reliability of the evidence, you know, sort of go hand in hand in that, you know, we have inherently reliable scientific tests, you know, reliability, not just on the basis of the test, but also based on all of the other evidence that is supporting these positive tests.

[00:17:26] Speaker 00:
I guess then I'll ask you, are you aware of any cases where we just didn't require good cause at all, where we just said, we're going to—we're just going to not do this commuter balancing test?

[00:17:35] Speaker 00:
We don't need good cause.

[00:17:38] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor.

[00:17:39] Speaker 04:
I think the court absolutely does have to weigh the government's good cause, but I would just say again that, you know, the district court did not, you know, conduct that test in Comito and Holland, and this court reviewed the record and did that test.

[00:17:51] Speaker 04:
And I would just point the court again, you know, to the lab reports establishing that these witnesses are out of state.

[00:17:58] Speaker 04:
I mean, to the question earlier about video testimony,

[00:18:02] Speaker 04:
You know, there still is a difficulty, you know, and a resource allocation necessary to do that.

[00:18:07] Speaker 04:
And not just for the government, but for the court also.

[00:18:10] Speaker 02:
But again, that's on one side of the ledger.

[00:18:11] Speaker 02:
On the other side of the ledger, which is important, is the confrontation and the right of that individual to confront that witness.

[00:18:19] Speaker 02:
And that was not here.

[00:18:21] Speaker 04:
That is true, Your Honor.

[00:18:23] Speaker 04:
I mean, I'm not saying there's no interest in confronting the witnesses.

[00:18:28] Speaker 04:
But again, when we look at the defendant's interest, we look at the nature of the facts proven by the evidence, the importance of those specific facts.

[00:18:36] Speaker 04:
and the reliability of the evidence.

[00:18:38] Speaker 04:
And so, I mean, again, I mean, if Mr. Koontz was going to cross-examine these testing chemists about whether residual excretion can cause these kind of positive tests, I mean, we would object to that.

[00:18:49] Speaker 04:
That's beyond the scope of their testimony.

[00:18:50] Speaker 04:
It's beyond the scope of their work in this case.

[00:18:52] Speaker 04:
And he has another avenue to do that.

[00:18:54] Speaker 04:
He can absolutely retain his own expert witness.

[00:18:57] Speaker 04:
I mean, as my colleague has referenced us doing in the past, if this was an argument that he wanted to advance, he had a way.

[00:19:04] Speaker 04:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:19:05] Speaker 03:
No, I just have two questions.

[00:19:07] Speaker 03:
One, did the email exchange between the PO and the toxicologist about possible explanations for the tests come into the record?

[00:19:17] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor.

[00:19:17] Speaker 03:
Before the district court?

[00:19:19] Speaker 04:
The probation officer's testimony did, but I don't believe the email itself did.

[00:19:23] Speaker 04:
No, Your Honor.

[00:19:23] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
And in Martin, we noted that the defendant had asked for the opportunity to retest the sample, and it was denied.

[00:19:33] Speaker 03:
I believe the defendant here testified that he asked the PO if he could get the samples retested, and that request was denied.

[00:19:41] Speaker 03:
Why doesn't that fact weigh in his favor?

[00:19:43] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I see that I'm out of time.

[00:19:45] Speaker 04:
May I briefly respond?

[00:19:46] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:19:47] Speaker 04:
So, Mr. Kuntz did not ask—he asked for an opportunity to conduct different testing, urinalysis testing, hair follicle testing.

[00:19:55] Speaker 04:
And the reason that was not approved, as the probation officer testified at the revocation hearing, is those methods of testing

[00:20:01] Speaker 04:
are not approved by the court.

[00:20:03] Speaker 04:
They're not as reliable as the sweat patch testing.

[00:20:06] Speaker 04:
And he did, of course, go out and get a hair follicle test and a polygraph test.

[00:20:11] Speaker 04:
And he submitted those lab reports to the court and absolutely could have called those witnesses to testify at the revocation hearing if he had wanted to do so.

[00:20:21] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:20:23] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:20:30] Speaker 01:
I've got five points I'd like to make.

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
I'll try to be fast.

[00:20:34] Speaker 01:
First, this idea that we have to bring in our own expert.

[00:20:37] Speaker 01:
That's not the defendant's burden.

[00:20:40] Speaker 01:
That's not how due process works.

[00:20:43] Speaker 01:
That's not how the right to confrontation works.

[00:20:46] Speaker 01:
That's where the Crawford line of cases is informative.

[00:20:50] Speaker 01:
Also, regarding the Crawford line of cases, there's not some sort of lab report exception to confrontation or in the revocation context due process.

[00:21:02] Speaker 01:
The government's wrong when it says that the cases that support us from this court are only eyewitness type, street type testimony.

[00:21:13] Speaker 01:
Martin involved your analysis test.

[00:21:17] Speaker 01:
All 28J, the case I referenced, I don't take the court's time today regarding that.

[00:21:23] Speaker 01:
Also this idea of it was too expensive.

[00:21:26] Speaker 01:
The court may know it cost about $51,000 a year to incarcerate somebody.

[00:21:31] Speaker 01:
So Mr. Koon's got a sentence that cost the taxpayers as much as over $100,000.

[00:21:37] Speaker 01:
And it's his liberty.

[00:21:39] Speaker 01:
I don't think it's too expensive to fly in a witness or to arrange for

[00:21:45] Speaker 01:
remote testimony via video that happens routinely in district courts, at least in Missoula, I presume across the country.

[00:21:52] Speaker 01:
And then finally, the government's resorting to what it did in its briefing that there's some sort of sweat patch or lab report exception to due process.

[00:22:02] Speaker 01:
And that's not the case.

[00:22:04] Speaker 01:
Otherwise, why have a balancing test?

[00:22:06] Speaker 01:
Camito's out the window.

[00:22:07] Speaker 01:
Martin's out the window.

[00:22:09] Speaker 01:
Due process is out the window.

[00:22:11] Speaker 01:
Why even have a hearing?

[00:22:12] Speaker 01:
The sweat patch is summarily dispositive under the government's theory.

[00:22:17] Speaker 01:
For that reason, Your Honor, we're asking that the court vacate Mr. Koontz's revocation judgment and remand for further proceedings.

[00:22:26] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Counsel, for your helpful evidence.