[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
of United States versus Hernandez Moreno.

[00:00:02] Speaker 00:
This is 23-5010.

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

[00:00:06] Speaker 00:
Dean Sanderford from the Federal Defender's Office.

[00:00:08] Speaker 00:
I'm here for Raul Hernandez Moreno.

[00:00:11] Speaker 00:
The issue in this case is whether the District Court plainly erred in allowing Detective Ward to effectively testify that he believed the co-defendant's account over Mr. Moreno's.

[00:00:21] Speaker 00:
In assessing this question, it's important to look at the testimony we challenge as a whole.

[00:00:26] Speaker 00:
So with respect to the co-defendant Hughes' statements, the detective conveyed that he generally believed her story and specifically believed her denial that they used a BB gun.

[00:00:36] Speaker 00:
And here's why.

[00:00:37] Speaker 00:
The first thing he said about her statement was that she gave partial truths.

[00:00:42] Speaker 00:
That's an explicit opinion on the truthfulness of her account, that some of what she said was true and some of what she said was false.

[00:00:49] Speaker 00:
He then immediately goes on to explain what he meant by that.

[00:00:53] Speaker 00:
And he says on the one hand,

[00:00:54] Speaker 00:
She gave him a good general idea of what actually occurred.

[00:00:58] Speaker 00:
And on the other hand, she minimized her own involvement.

[00:01:01] Speaker 00:
So essentially what he's telling the jury is I mostly believed her story, but she minimized her own participation in the robberies.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
Then just a short time later, the prosecution zeros in on the BB gun, which was the critical dispute at the trial.

[00:01:15] Speaker 00:
They had the detective testify that Hughes had said that there was no BB gun.

[00:01:21] Speaker 00:
And then the prosecutor asks, did he have any concerns after speaking with her that a BB gun had been used?

[00:01:28] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry to interrupt you so early, Mr. Sandiford, but when the officers, or when there was testimony from the officer that these were pretty solid account, that was the initial interview.

[00:01:46] Speaker 01:
And at that initial interview, there was nothing about the BB gun, correct?

[00:01:50] Speaker 00:
Well, we don't know exactly what was said in the initial interview.

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
Well, we kind of do.

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
And that's for a couple of reasons.

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
So first, Hughes had already testified.

[00:02:00] Speaker 00:
And she testified that her trial testimony was the same as her statement, except that she was admitting more fully her participation in the robbery.

[00:02:08] Speaker 00:
And her trial testimony, of course, was that they had used a BB gun.

[00:02:14] Speaker 04:
You know, this entire trial... But don't you need to nail that down in order to establish error here?

[00:02:20] Speaker 00:
No, I don't think so, and for a couple of reasons.

[00:02:23] Speaker 00:
I think one is just the detective testifying that he generally believes her, that he generally believes she was telling the truth, is vouching for her credibility in a general way.

[00:02:33] Speaker 00:
Yeah, but about what is the point?

[00:02:35] Speaker 00:
Well, about the story that she gave.

[00:02:37] Speaker 00:
Just the general story.

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
Nothing about the BB gun.

[00:02:41] Speaker 00:
Well, there's nothing explicit about the BB gun at that point.

[00:02:44] Speaker 00:
Well, isn't that important?

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
I don't think it is important, because for a couple of reasons.

[00:02:49] Speaker 00:
One is that just a few transcript pages later, they do zero in on the BB gun.

[00:02:54] Speaker 00:
And he says he didn't have any concerns that a BB gun was used after her denial of the BB gun.

[00:03:00] Speaker 00:
So the way that testimony unfolds is, what was her testimony about the BB gun?

[00:03:07] Speaker 00:
She said there wasn't a BB gun on that day.

[00:03:10] Speaker 00:
After hearing from her, did you have any concerns that there was a BB gun?

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
No, I didn't.

[00:03:15] Speaker 00:
So that is explicitly about the BB gun.

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
It's a direct question about the BB gun.

[00:03:19] Speaker 00:
And all of this testimony that we're talking about spans just a few pages of transcript.

[00:03:25] Speaker 04:
And we're, again, at plain error here, right?

[00:03:28] Speaker 00:
We are at plain error, right.

[00:03:30] Speaker 00:
And so on plainness, well, one, the rule of law here is plain, that no witness can testify that they believe another witness's account, whether

[00:03:40] Speaker 00:
It's a lay witness, expert witness.

[00:03:42] Speaker 00:
It's forbidden.

[00:03:43] Speaker 01:
Well, and I don't want to pick on you, Mr. Sandberg, but it's sort of like qualified immunity.

[00:03:48] Speaker 01:
We really don't look for the obviousness of the error based on the clarity of the generic proposition of law.

[00:03:57] Speaker 01:
We really have to laser in on this specific colloquy to see whether or not this colloquy was so obviously

[00:04:08] Speaker 01:
implicates this generic prohibition under Jones and Charlie Wright.

[00:04:17] Speaker 00:
Yes, absolutely, that's the case.

[00:04:18] Speaker 00:
But I think it does clearly implicate it for a few reasons, some of which we've already talked about.

[00:04:24] Speaker 00:
I mean, the first thing he says is that she told partial truths.

[00:04:28] Speaker 00:
So that's very explicit.

[00:04:30] Speaker 00:
That's saying she told me things that were true, she told me things that were false.

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
And when he explains that, what he means is she generally told, I generally believed her.

[00:04:38] Speaker 00:
I thought that she gave me an accurate accounting of what happened, except that she minimized her own involvement.

[00:04:44] Speaker 00:
So right from the get-go, he's saying, I spoke to her, she told me her story, and I generally believed it.

[00:04:50] Speaker 00:
I think that's just as clear as it was in Jones.

[00:04:53] Speaker 00:
And then, again, just a few pages later in the transcript.

[00:04:57] Speaker 03:
Jones was a little more specific than that.

[00:04:59] Speaker 00:
Jones was more specific in the sense that the question was... Mother said, I believe my daughters.

[00:05:06] Speaker 00:
That's true, but I think that maybe it's more direct in that sense, but it's just as explicit here because he's talking in terms of truth.

[00:05:13] Speaker 00:
He's saying, she gave me partial truths.

[00:05:16] Speaker 00:
And there's only one way to understand that, is that he believed some of it, didn't believe other parts, and then he explains what he did believe and what he didn't believe.

[00:05:24] Speaker 00:
And then if you jump just a few transcript pages up,

[00:05:27] Speaker 00:
zeroing in on the BB gun in particular, we know that she said to him, there was no BB gun.

[00:05:32] Speaker 00:
And then he's asked, did you have any concerns after talking to her that there was a BB gun?

[00:05:36] Speaker 00:
And he says, no.

[00:05:37] Speaker 00:
There's no other way to understand that, except that he's telling the jury, I believed her.

[00:05:42] Speaker 00:
Because if he hadn't, he would have had concerns.

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
He believed her on a specific instance.

[00:05:48] Speaker 03:
On a specific day, she told him the truth.

[00:05:51] Speaker 03:
On another day, she wasn't telling him.

[00:05:53] Speaker 00:
Well, so I think that she's... That's how I kind of gather.

[00:05:57] Speaker 00:
Well, he does say that she told partial truths the first time, but what he identifies as the partial untruth is her minimizing her own involvement.

[00:06:06] Speaker 00:
And she testifies to this too and says, you know, yeah, I dumped it all on everybody else.

[00:06:10] Speaker 00:
I didn't take personal responsibility, but I explained how the robbery happened.

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
That's the part of her story that changes is that she implicates herself.

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
There's no indication that any other part of the story had been any different.

[00:06:22] Speaker 04:
Do we even need her testimony?

[00:06:24] Speaker 04:
Hughes' testimony?

[00:06:26] Speaker 00:
Yes, absolutely, because she's the only witness who testifies that they used the real gun.

[00:06:32] Speaker 00:
She's the only person with first-hand knowledge who testifies at the trial that they used the real gun.

[00:06:37] Speaker 04:
And this was a significant... Oroglio said they used my gun.

[00:06:41] Speaker 04:
He did not testify, I know.

[00:06:42] Speaker 04:
He said this...

[00:06:44] Speaker 04:
I had this gun, and they used this gun in both car jackets.

[00:06:49] Speaker 00:
That's not quite accurate.

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
What the detective testifies that Ireligo says is that the gun that they found matched the description of his gun.

[00:06:59] Speaker 00:
We don't know what that means.

[00:07:00] Speaker 00:
There was no follow-up to any of this.

[00:07:02] Speaker 00:
That could just as easily be a denial.

[00:07:04] Speaker 00:
They said, well, it wasn't my gun, but it looked like my gun.

[00:07:07] Speaker 00:
That's just as consistent with what the detective said.

[00:07:10] Speaker 00:
And without any follow-up questioning,

[00:07:12] Speaker 00:
I mean, this was an answer that came out on cross-examination.

[00:07:14] Speaker 00:
It was one sentence everybody moved on.

[00:07:17] Speaker 00:
It wasn't picked back up on redirect to explain.

[00:07:19] Speaker 00:
It wasn't brought up in closing arguments.

[00:07:22] Speaker 04:
Don't we have Espinola's testimony here that was very strong?

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
He was very adamant about the kind of gun that was pointed at him and his description of it, and he said it was absolutely not

[00:07:33] Speaker 04:
a BB gun.

[00:07:34] Speaker 00:
Well, no, he didn't say that.

[00:07:35] Speaker 00:
What he said about the gun that was pointed at him was that it was black, which matches the BB gun better.

[00:07:40] Speaker 00:
He does say that the gun that was found in his truck, which was the BB gun, was a different color from the one used.

[00:07:46] Speaker 00:
But then he's shown a photograph.

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
He's pretty specific.

[00:07:49] Speaker 03:
He says it wasn't the same.

[00:07:51] Speaker 03:
The gun found in his vehicle was the BB gun, right?

[00:07:55] Speaker 00:
That's right.

[00:07:55] Speaker 03:
And he says, it wasn't the same gun that I had seen before.

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
it, the one I'd seen before, was a different color than the one I was pointed with.

[00:08:06] Speaker 03:
It then softens it, doesn't it?

[00:08:10] Speaker 00:
He softens it.

[00:08:11] Speaker 00:
He softens it and says it's black.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
Well, see, that's the thing is on the cross-examination he says he's shown an actual photograph of the BB gun and then he backtracks and he says he's not sure

[00:08:21] Speaker 00:
It had the same form.

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
So, you know, what we have on direct examination is kind of based on his memory of months before, but when he's shown an actual photograph of it, he's not at all sure that it's the same gun.

[00:08:33] Speaker 03:
It's interesting to me, though, because there is a real clear difference in the colors of these guns.

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
There is, but you have to remember that we have a side view of the gun.

[00:08:42] Speaker 00:
The victims did not.

[00:08:44] Speaker 00:
The gun was pointed at them, pointed down.

[00:08:46] Speaker 00:
And if you look at the front of the gun, the front of the real gun is dark brown.

[00:08:50] Speaker 00:
You don't see all the green and the different coloration on it.

[00:08:53] Speaker 00:
And the front of the BB gun is black.

[00:08:54] Speaker 00:
So from the point of view of someone having it pointed at them, they actually do look fairly similar.

[00:09:01] Speaker 00:
You know, in just a minute, I'm sorry, please.

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
I just want to, what do we do with cross-examination?

[00:09:06] Speaker 01:
Now, they say, okay, well, the examination on cross-examination, that was proper.

[00:09:11] Speaker 01:
And you say, yeah, that's right.

[00:09:12] Speaker 01:
We didn't challenge any of that.

[00:09:15] Speaker 01:
But then at prong three, what do we do with it?

[00:09:20] Speaker 01:
Because you're saying that it was, you're not disputing the admissibility of it.

[00:09:25] Speaker 01:
And Detective Ward testifies on cross-examination, the question

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
and you would agree with me that Ms.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
Hughes is not a reliable and trustworthy person, answer, I would think in this instance she's trying to do the right thing.

[00:09:38] Speaker 01:
I would say she's giving truthful testimony.

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
And so, unless we just pretend that that didn't exist in analyzing prong three, can we really say that saying basically a milder version of what was properly admitted on cross was erroneous under Jones and Charlie

[00:09:59] Speaker 01:
that had a substantial effect on the outcome, how can we say that?

[00:10:03] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:10:04] Speaker 00:
So the reason is because for harmless error analysis, it's a counterfactual.

[00:10:09] Speaker 00:
It's how the trial would have played out but for the error.

[00:10:12] Speaker 00:
If the prosecutor hadn't elicited this evidence about disbelief... Well, under third prong, I'm sorry.

[00:10:18] Speaker 00:
Under third prong of prejudice.

[00:10:19] Speaker 00:
Substantial rights, which is what I understood your question.

[00:10:22] Speaker 00:
Right, I am.

[00:10:22] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:10:23] Speaker 01:
It's your burden.

[00:10:23] Speaker 00:
Okay, right.

[00:10:24] Speaker 00:
It's my burden.

[00:10:25] Speaker 00:
But my point is that the way that that's done is it's a counterfactual.

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
You say, but for this error, how would it have played out?

[00:10:31] Speaker 00:
On direct.

[00:10:32] Speaker 00:
Huh?

[00:10:32] Speaker 00:
on direct.

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
Let me finish because I don't think I'm very clear.

[00:10:36] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:10:37] Speaker 00:
My point is that if the prosecutor hadn't elicited the testimony that he believed, Ms.

[00:10:45] Speaker 00:
Hughes, then that cross-examination would have never happened.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
How do you know this?

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
because what he was trying to do was discredit the officer's belief in her testimony.

[00:10:54] Speaker 00:
So you see this in other contexts under reasonable probability, harmless error kind of analysis, third party type of analysis, where the court says, for example, the failure to elicit certain evidence

[00:11:06] Speaker 00:
wasn't prejudicial because if it had been elicited, the other side would have put on other evidence as more damage.

[00:11:13] Speaker 01:
But don't you always say, with Rule 609, evidence of prior conviction of a witness.

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
You know, there's a motion inolimity, it's denied, and so on direct examination you try to remove the sting, and so you acknowledge the evidence of the prior conviction, and then on appeal you say, well, the motion inolimity was incorrectly decided.

[00:11:34] Speaker 01:
don't we and every circuit court in the United States say, let's move.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
You elicited that.

[00:11:41] Speaker 01:
We can't just pretend that this didn't exist and think, OK, well, what would they have done?

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
Would they have asked this question?

[00:11:51] Speaker 01:
Would they not have asked this question?

[00:11:53] Speaker 00:
I think that there's two different situations here.

[00:11:55] Speaker 00:
I think one of them is when the other side is

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
capitalizing on the evidence, trying to use it in some way.

[00:12:02] Speaker 00:
That's not what was going on here.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
He was trying to completely discredit what the officer had said.

[00:12:07] Speaker 00:
So, I mean, this cross-examination was geared towards discrediting his belief in Hughes' statement.

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
That cross never would have happened had it not been for the detective having testified that he believed it, because there would have been nothing to discredit.

[00:12:21] Speaker 01:
If he got a favorable answer, that would have been a heck of a good answer for him, because

[00:12:28] Speaker 01:
Even if the Detective Ward had endorsed Hughes' credibility, she still was a star witness for the prosecution.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
So that still would be a pretty good defense tactic to say, well, you would agree with me that the prosecution's star witness is a big fat liar.

[00:12:46] Speaker 00:
Yeah, that's true.

[00:12:47] Speaker 00:
And I mean, I'd point out, and I don't know exactly where this fits, to be totally honest, is that the question that he asked was just a character question that's permitted.

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
The detective answered it in an impermissible way.

[00:12:58] Speaker 00:
Now, defense counsel didn't move to strike it or anything like that.

[00:13:01] Speaker 00:
But I think that if you look at this section of cross-examination as a whole, what he's trying to do is discredit the detective's belief in her testimony.

[00:13:11] Speaker 00:
The detective had said, I talked to Miss Hughes.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
I believed what she said.

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
So where he starts off is asking about confirmation bias and stuff like that.

[00:13:19] Speaker 04:
And doesn't that examination

[00:13:22] Speaker 04:
aid in curing any harm?

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
I don't think it does because there's no indication that it was at all effective.

[00:13:30] Speaker 00:
I mean, he says, well, aren't you, you know, the question was something along the lines of, aren't you more likely to believe something that, you know, fits with your side of the story?

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
And the doctor says no.

[00:13:39] Speaker 04:
And so that's why you said that you believed her and you followed her story and it was confirmed with other people's story and

[00:13:48] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:13:49] Speaker 00:
I mean, I think that's why the question was asked.

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
I guess my point is that there's no reason to think it was effective in any way.

[00:13:54] Speaker 00:
I mean, the detective just flat out denies it.

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
Defense counsel moves on.

[00:13:58] Speaker 04:
Well, but it plants the seed in the mind of the jury.

[00:14:01] Speaker 00:
Maybe.

[00:14:02] Speaker 04:
What do these law enforcement people do?

[00:14:04] Speaker 04:
They just hear what they want to hear.

[00:14:06] Speaker 00:
Well, I mean, he'd also told the jury that he'd been to interrogation school, that he was trained in doing these types of interrogations.

[00:14:12] Speaker 00:
I just don't know why we would assume that the jurors are going to be moved by that sort of cross-examination in light of the fact that this detective has this specialized training.

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
I see that I'm out of time.

[00:14:25] Speaker 03:
Was there any discussion in the closing argument of the credibility issue?

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
And closing arguments?

[00:14:33] Speaker 00:
No, there wasn't.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
But I don't think that's very important, because this was a very short trial.

[00:14:38] Speaker 00:
Detective Ward was one of the last witnesses.

[00:14:40] Speaker 00:
He was certainly the last main witness.

[00:14:42] Speaker 00:
So I don't think that matters much one way or another.

[00:14:46] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:14:47] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:14:47] Speaker 01:
Did you have any follow-up?

[00:14:50] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, counsel, Joel Lynn McCormick on behalf of the United States,

[00:15:01] Speaker 02:
The court should affirm appellant's convictions on all counts for two reasons.

[00:15:06] Speaker 02:
First, just to dovetail into the discussion the court just had with counsel, the testimony of Detective Ward on direct examination did not constitute error.

[00:15:17] Speaker 02:
The trial court did not commit error by not striking Detective Ward's testimony.

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
As the court has highlighted, the testimony of Detective Ward was limited in reference to whether or not the detective offered any opinion evidence, certainly not from an expert opinion, as to whether or not he believed either the appellate's account of the events that occurred

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
or the co-conspirator, Ms.

[00:15:47] Speaker 02:
Hughes, who also testified at trial.

[00:15:50] Speaker 02:
When you look at the questions that were posed to Detective Ward on direct examination, it goes to, just as the court's questions highlighted, that he referenced basically that he was a witness or an individual who was responsible for conducting an investigation.

[00:16:09] Speaker 01:
Who had been trained at the Reed School of Interrogation and in a prayer of precedence,

[00:16:14] Speaker 01:
We've addressed that as an imprimatur on the expertise of the police officer.

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
So isn't that significant?

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
It's not just like he was asking, well, you know, Bob Bagrag, did you think that the person was credible?

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
Did you, Detective Ward, who had attended this very impressive school of interrogation, did you believe Hughes?

[00:16:40] Speaker 02:
Yes, your honor, but when you look at the line of questioning in this case compared to what I believe the court is referring to as the Hill case, where the agent Charlie Jones testified reference to his extensive training and how he was able to interpret various gestures and body language and how he would interpret someone relying on their faith as a factor when weighing someone's credibility.

[00:17:09] Speaker 02:
That's certainly not what we have here, Your Honor.

[00:17:11] Speaker 02:
There was minimal discussion with Detective Ward in reference to his training and experience.

[00:17:18] Speaker 02:
There was some general discussion.

[00:17:20] Speaker 02:
But when comparing it to Hill, there is no comparison.

[00:17:24] Speaker 02:
And in reference to how Detective Ward applied that training and experience in his interpretation of what he was discovering through the course of his investigation, there is no comparison.

[00:17:38] Speaker 02:
where in the Hill case, there was a step-by-step discussion as to what various responses meant to the detective.

[00:17:47] Speaker 02:
And then again, that discussion was highlighted in the government's closing argument.

[00:17:53] Speaker 02:
That's not what we have here.

[00:17:55] Speaker 02:
In reference to Detective Ward, his testimony touched on basically the fact that he was in the course of an investigation.

[00:18:03] Speaker 02:
I believe his words in his testimony was that the facts he was discovering in reference to which firearm was used or whether or not Ms.

[00:18:14] Speaker 02:
Hughes was providing

[00:18:16] Speaker 02:
information that was forthcoming.

[00:18:19] Speaker 02:
That was information that, and I believe he used the word, was corroborated by other facts.

[00:18:25] Speaker 02:
And so to the extent that he is a witness, a fact witness, who was involved in an ongoing investigation, it's not comparable to the testimony that this court found improper in Hill versus United States.

[00:18:42] Speaker 02:
In reference to the testimony concerning

[00:18:46] Speaker 02:
Again, we would ask the court to find that there's no error in the direct examination from Detective Ward in that regard as well.

[00:18:56] Speaker 02:
As the court has referenced, there was minimal direct testimony, and in reference to the specific testimony from Detective Ward in that regard,

[00:19:06] Speaker 02:
I believe his statement was that he found that the appellant had minimized the dangerousness of the events.

[00:19:14] Speaker 02:
And that did go to which firearm or whether or not an actual firearm was used or a BB gun.

[00:19:21] Speaker 04:
Does Rule 608 even apply in that instance?

[00:19:27] Speaker 04:
colloquy that you just described?

[00:19:29] Speaker 02:
In the colloquy I just described, Your Honor, I believe Rule 608 does not apply.

[00:19:36] Speaker 04:
Because?

[00:19:37] Speaker 02:
Because, Your Honor, it's an instance where we have a witness.

[00:19:41] Speaker 02:
He doesn't elaborate on the believability.

[00:19:45] Speaker 02:
He simply is using the word minimize.

[00:19:48] Speaker 04:
But the believability, the person that's the target of that statement was the defendant, and the defendant didn't testify.

[00:19:56] Speaker 04:
So does 608 even apply?

[00:19:58] Speaker 02:
Again, Your Honor, no, Your Honor, we believe 608 does not apply in that instance.

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
And so in reference to both the discussion in reference to Hughes or Detective Ward's testimony concerning co-conspirator Hughes as well as the appellant, we'd ask the court to find that there is no error and certainly not plain error in that regard.

[00:20:22] Speaker 02:
If the court does find error in this instance,

[00:20:25] Speaker 02:
And we go on to an analysis as to whether or not this appellant's substantial rights were affected.

[00:20:31] Speaker 02:
We ask the court to find that based on the totality of the evidence before this jury, if we look at the balance of the evidence, if Detective Ward's testimony is stricken,

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
the jury would have ended with the same result.

[00:20:45] Speaker 02:
How do we know that?

[00:20:47] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, because the record is replete with evidence where that supports this jury's findings of guilt on all counts.

[00:20:58] Speaker 01:
Let me ask it this way, not as an argumentative question, but just so you know what my trepidation about what you just said is.

[00:21:05] Speaker 01:
It seems to me that this is just a very, very close swearing match.

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
Was it this gun, or Leoga, or whatever his name is, was it his gun that Hugh says, or is it the BB gun?

[00:21:25] Speaker 01:
And there's no question that he had testified, I mean, that the star witness had acknowledged

[00:21:35] Speaker 01:
at least in the initial interview, that the defendant had always carried that BB gun.

[00:21:40] Speaker 01:
He says he pulled that BB gun out of his pocket, and that's what was used in both of the robberies.

[00:21:47] Speaker 01:
And then the woman says, no, it was this other gun.

[00:21:50] Speaker 01:
And as Judge Moritz was alluding to, well, the BB gun is an espionage vehicle, and it was in this third party's, the other gun was in this third party's vehicle.

[00:22:04] Speaker 01:
Well, it's just a complete swearing match.

[00:22:06] Speaker 01:
It all boils down, if I'm on a jury, I would, you know, the tiebreaker is what that woman said.

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
Well, Your Honor, I believe it's important to look at all of the facts, and it doesn't really boil down to just a swearing match, because in this instance,

[00:22:26] Speaker 02:
we have a very tight and important timeline on when the physical evidence was located and seized.

[00:22:34] Speaker 02:
So the last carjacking was committed morning of approximately 9.30 a.m.

[00:22:43] Speaker 02:
The getaway car, the blue SUV, is seen leaving the apartment complex where the second victim had been encountered by the perpetrators.

[00:22:52] Speaker 02:
It's within hours.

[00:22:55] Speaker 02:
It's on the same day as the car jackings when Mr. Araliga was arrested driving the blue SUV, the getaway car, where the blue bandana that had been worn by co-conspirator Hughes is found in the getaway car with the firearm that had been used in the two car jackings.

[00:23:17] Speaker 01:
Why is that Trump Espinosa's fighting with the BB gun in his beard?

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
It trumps, Your Honor, because when you're looking at all of the evidence again, we know from the testimony, not just a swearing match, but from the testimony of the two victims and from co-conspirator Hughes,

[00:23:34] Speaker 02:
that the vehicles that were taken from the two victims were used throughout the course of that and the rest of that day and the following day to go from location to location, stealing mail, stealing anything they could get their hands on in order to continue the crime spree.

[00:23:54] Speaker 02:
So those cars were in possession of the appellant

[00:23:58] Speaker 02:
and co-conspirator Hughes using those cars as they wish, going in and out.

[00:24:03] Speaker 02:
We know that also from the items that were found in the stolen vehicles and the materials that were found in the getaway car.

[00:24:13] Speaker 03:
One of those cars was found with the BB gun in it.

[00:24:17] Speaker 03:
Exactly.

[00:24:18] Speaker 02:
How does that support... That goes to the fact that Ms.

[00:24:22] Speaker 02:
Hughes, co-conspirator Hughes, and the appellant had been using those vehicles throughout... Both vehicles.

[00:24:30] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:24:31] Speaker 03:
I mean, it's a very confusing scenario that you presented to the jury.

[00:24:37] Speaker 03:
And I struggle to see why this doesn't come down to Detective Ward's statement.

[00:24:42] Speaker 03:
And I'd like you to address

[00:24:44] Speaker 03:
your argument in the brief that you made about Hughes' statements in particular, I believe you indicated that somehow this went to her general, the Detective Ward statements went to her general reputation for character truthless rather than to her truthfulness on a particular occasion.

[00:25:06] Speaker 03:
How could that possibly be?

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
All he was talking about was her

[00:25:11] Speaker 03:
Truthfulness when he at the rule 11 proper her truthfulness when he interviewed her

[00:25:17] Speaker 03:
I don't know how you could argue that he was somehow talking about something else, some general reputation.

[00:25:23] Speaker 02:
Because he never, Your Honor, offers a specific statement that he is talking about her believability.

[00:25:32] Speaker 02:
He never uses the words.

[00:25:34] Speaker 03:
He's talking about her believability when he interviewed her on a particular occasion about a particular subject, which was the subject of this trial.

[00:25:44] Speaker 03:
What gun was being used.

[00:25:45] Speaker 03:
That's pretty specific.

[00:25:48] Speaker 02:
It's specific, Your Honor, in terms of how he is investigating this particular crime and how it's evolving.

[00:25:56] Speaker 02:
And yes, when he's talking about in terms of her initial interview and what was discussed at the Rule 11, there's certainly an inference that can be drawn by the jury that there was an evolution as to how much more information was gathered between

[00:26:14] Speaker 02:
those two settings.

[00:26:16] Speaker 02:
However, again, unlike the testimony in Hill, this is not an instance where this particular witness offered a firm opinion as to whether or not he believed this particular witness.

[00:26:30] Speaker 04:
Does it matter if the BB gun was used or the 9mm?

[00:26:35] Speaker 04:
When you look at the instruction given to the jury, it's an intent to cause bodily harm.

[00:26:42] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, the government's position is that it does not matter.

[00:26:46] Speaker 02:
In reference to the BB gun, and I believe there was some questioning in this regard, on cross-examination in particular, in reference to the dangerousness of a BB gun.

[00:26:58] Speaker 02:
So in that regard, Your Honor, I don't think that it matters in reference to whether or not the 9-millimeter or the BB gun was used.

[00:27:08] Speaker 04:
But I would... So wasn't that resolved, this whole debate about

[00:27:11] Speaker 04:
Who do you believe in the vouching issue?

[00:27:15] Speaker 02:
I believe it does.

[00:27:16] Speaker 02:
It does relieve some of the pressure on whether.

[00:27:19] Speaker 04:
Since I think we're at plain error, is that right?

[00:27:22] Speaker 04:
We are, Your Honor.

[00:27:23] Speaker 02:
We are plain error.

[00:27:24] Speaker 02:
But I want to use just a few minutes to clarify the facts of this case were not as confusing or muddled as one would think from the transcript.

[00:27:35] Speaker 02:
You have victim number one who describes the blue SUV

[00:27:39] Speaker 02:
And he describes the gun that was pointed at him and that the woman was wearing a face covering.

[00:27:44] Speaker 02:
You have victim number two who describes again the blue SUV and the perpetrators and in his trial testimony, he actually gestures, he says that it's the type of gun where it slides back.

[00:27:56] Speaker 02:
The transcript indicates that he is indicating it's the same type of motion that one would use with a nine millimeter that's found.

[00:28:05] Speaker 02:
That's the real gun.

[00:28:07] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:28:08] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, when I'm referencing victim one and two.

[00:28:11] Speaker 02:
Yes, Mr. Espinosa.

[00:28:12] Speaker 02:
Again, in reference to Ms., that's important because Ms.

[00:28:17] Speaker 02:
Hughes describes, I wore a face covering during these carjackings.

[00:28:22] Speaker 02:
The fact that her face covering is found in the same location

[00:28:27] Speaker 02:
with the nine millimeter gun is glaring.

[00:28:30] Speaker 02:
And that makes this case a lot different from the authorities that are relied on, even the Jones case that's relied upon by the appellant in this case.

[00:28:39] Speaker 03:
Well, I'm sorry, but you've got Mr. Espinosa right after he says what you just repeated.

[00:28:44] Speaker 03:
He says, I don't know if the BB gun

[00:28:47] Speaker 03:
that was found in my vehicle was the same one, but I'm saying it was a black one.

[00:28:52] Speaker 03:
I mean, he's all over the place and that's not unusual for somebody in that scenario under that kind of pressure.

[00:28:59] Speaker 03:
And I'm just saying his own testimony was not consistent.

[00:29:05] Speaker 02:
It was, he struggled.

[00:29:06] Speaker 02:
There's a language barrier there.

[00:29:08] Speaker 02:
He struggled, but if you look at the end, at the end of the day, he rests with, it's not the gun that he found in his truck.

[00:29:16] Speaker 02:
And it's a gun which he described as a brownish.

[00:29:19] Speaker 02:
He describes it as a multicolored gun.

[00:29:22] Speaker 01:
Or dark green.

[00:29:23] Speaker 01:
Yeah, dark green.

[00:29:24] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:29:25] Speaker 01:
The BB gun does have a component of dark green, doesn't it?

[00:29:29] Speaker 02:
The BB gun is black, Your Honor.

[00:29:31] Speaker 01:
I thought it was multicolored.

[00:29:33] Speaker 02:
The 9-millimeter gun.

[00:29:35] Speaker 02:
The 9-millimeter gun is multicolored, which those characteristics that he's describing are more consistent with the 9-millimeter gun.

[00:29:47] Speaker 02:
Your honor, I see my time is up.

[00:29:49] Speaker 02:
If there are no additional questions, we ask that the court affirm on all counts.

[00:29:53] Speaker 01:
OK, thank you.

[00:29:55] Speaker 01:
OK, it was very well presented, by the way, in your briefs and in your arguments today.

[00:29:59] Speaker 01:
Thank you, counsel, from both sides.

[00:30:00] Speaker 01:
It's better submitted.